Standing Committee G

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

Anti-social Behaviour Bill

Clause 32 - Powers of community support officers

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 173, in 
clause 32, page 26, line 4, leave out subsection (2).—[Mrs. Brooke.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Bill O'Brien: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following:
 Amendment No. 174, in 
clause 32, page 26, line 7, leave out subsection (3).

Bob Ainsworth: I was about to conclude my comments on the Liberal Democrat amendment by saying that individual chief police officers will have to decide in each case whether to designate community support officers with the powers, as they do for designating CSOs with any other powers. The chief police officer will therefore have to ensure that the person designated is comfortable with the designation and has had the appropriate training to be able to exercise the powers that we seek to give them. In the light of my explanations, I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his answer, which has provided some reassurance. I am pleased, however, to have been able to put down a marker about my general concern about community support officers being put into difficult situations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Interpretation

Tony McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 191, in
clause 35, page 27, line 12, at end insert— 
 '' 'antisocial behaviour'' means behaviour by a person which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more other persons not of the same household as the person,'.
 I start by thanking members of the Committee for their indulgence in moving part 2, for which I am largely responsible, to today so that I can talk about it, which I would have been unable to do last Thursday. I am grateful to all concerned. 
 This is a minor, technical amendment, which clarifies the definition of antisocial behaviour for the purposes of this part. We propose an identical definition to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in clauses 24 to 28. I therefore hope that hon. Members will accept the amendment. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Vernon Coaker: Clause 35 is about interpretation and the definition of ''relevant locality'', which refers us back to clause 29. During our discussions this morning, I meant to ask the Minister whether there is any limit on the size of the designated area or relevant locality. Is a relevant locality defined as a few streets, or is it up to the superintendent to define it?

Tony McNulty: The designation, as long as it is justified, can be as large as the basic command unit of which the commander is in control, or as small and as limited as a few streets, as he says. It is meant to be as flexible as that in terms of responding the locality concerned and the antisocial problems therein.

Vernon Coaker: It is helpful that my hon. Friend the Minister has clarified that the designated area or relevant locality can be quite large. That may overcome some of the problems that some of us thought might arise if a police officer had one set of powers in one street, but not a couple of hundred yards away. I hope that those who read the record of our deliberations—the command unit, the superintendents and so on—will take note of that.

James Paice: I shall take up what the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) has extracted from the Minister. The concept that a relevant locality could be an entire basic command unit area shines a slightly different light on some earlier discussions. I accept the Minister's point that the superintendent has complete flexibility. He may make the decision only in respect of a couple of streets. However, the prospect that the area could be as large as a whole BCU area throws a different light on the matter. In some ways, if that were the case, it would negate or at least reduce the concerns that I expressed under earlier amendments.
 I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gedling for getting the Minister to place that point on the record. It makes a significant difference. I just hope that, when the Bill is enacted, superintendents realise that they could have that scope. Then we might really see the benefits of this part of the Bill.

Liz Blackman: We have established that a relevant locality involves considerable flexibility. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that, to make the powers work, it is important that the provisions in the code of conduct also have flexibility?

Tony McNulty: That is indeed the case. The code of conduct is not meant to restrict any more readily than the flexibility in the Bill. As I said earlier, this is about relevance and full justification. In that context, I agree with my hon. Friend.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 3 - Aggravated trespass

'.—The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 shall be amended as follows. 
 Section 68—Offence of Aggravated Trespass 
 Subsection 1, line 2, leave out ''in the open air''. 
 Subsection 5, at end insert ''( ) In this section 'Land' does include commercial premises and buildings erected thereon''. 
 Section 69—Powers to remove 
 Subsection 1, paragraph (a) leave out ''in the open air''. 
 Subsection 1, paragraph (b) leave out ''in the open air''.'.—[Mr. Paice.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

James Paice: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 4—Trespassory assemblies—
 '.—The Public Order Act 1986 shall be amended as follows: 
 Section 14A—Prohibiting trespassory assemblies 
 Subsection (9), leave out ''20'' and insert ''3''.'.

James Paice: We now come to a rather different issue, although it fits with part 4 of the Bill because it has to do with dispersal of groups. In introducing the new clauses, I welcome formally the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), to the first sitting of the Committee in which he has participated. I am sure that he will follow the pattern of constructive engagement shown by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth). I am sorry that we did not reach the new clauses this morning, because the hon. Gentleman was prepared to respond to them, and I am sure that he would have been helpful. I do not in any way doubt that this Minister will be helpful, but he would be the first to acknowledge that this is not his master subject.
 I tabled the new clauses largely because of experiences that I have had in and around my constituency and representations made to me about the workings of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Public Order Act 1986 as they affect the control of animal rights demonstrations. My constituency is at the leading edge of biotechnological developments. Huntingdon Life Sciences, of which I should think every hon. Member has heard, is located just outside my constituency, but many of its employees are my constituents. A number of other institutions either engage in such research or commission it, so they are seriously affected by the activities of so-called animal rights activists. Now is not the occasion to have a debate about the rights and wrongs of their cause or of animal experimentation, nor indeed of the controlling legislation passed by the Conservative Government when we were in office. However, I believe it to be robust in controlling experiments. 
 I am seeking to amend two pieces of legislation with these two new clauses to deal with the activities of 
 protestors whose behaviour can be not just antisocial but threatening, and, on occasions, dangerous. There have been many physical attacks on those who either work in animal research or simply service companies engaged in animal research. It has gone beyond direct employees to others who may be linked to it, their firms of auditors, and so on. I am sure that the Minister is aware that there have been cases of firebombing and serious damage to property. 
 That is clearly already illegal, and I do not seek to address those issues. However, below that level of violence there is a serious, significant threat of violence, intimidation and harassment, which are themes that run through the Bill, hence its relevance. I am grateful to you, Mr. O'Brien, for allowing us to debate these new clauses. I hear from people involved in the sector that when they are going about their daily business and doing their job they are constantly intimidated and harassed. I will not pretend that if the Government accepted these new clauses they would solve all the problems, but it would be a step in the right direction. 
 These helpful proposals have been made by the BioIndustry Association. We see groups of protestors invading private property and shouting threats and abuse. They often enter commercial premises and run amok. The new clauses would help to address that. They stem from many conversations that I have had with affected businesses and, as I said, with the BioIndustry Association. 
 New clause 3 extends the situation in which the offence of aggravated trespass and its associated powers to remove can be implemented. The legislation as currently enacted restricts the offence of aggravated trespass to the open air. I want to amend it to ensure that it includes entering private commercial premises, which may be in the open air; not in the countryside or whatever but on private property. I also want to ensure in the insertion to section 68(5) that it could mean within buildings erected on such property. I realise that that would be a significant extension, but as I tried to explain to the Committee a few moments ago, it is a problem if a bunch of so-called animal rights protestors invade laboratories or whatever and threaten the people who work there going about their daily business. In such cases the police need the power to deal with aggravated trespass. 
 New clause 4 seeks to amend an older piece of legislation: the Public Order Act 1986. It seeks to reduce the number of people involved in a trespassory assembly from 20 to three. That is my proposal, although one could select any very low number. The reason is straightforward: whereas the 1994 Act amended the Public Order Act 1986 to introduce the prohibition of trespassory assemblies, it allowed chief officers to apply to the council for an order to prohibit an assembly, but the assembly had to consist of at least 20 people. 
 Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will appreciate the point made to me by many constituents: that one does not need many people standing on one's front lawn or drive to be extremely intimidated and harassed. Twenty is far too excessive a number. That is 
 why I propose in new clause 4 to reduce the figure from 20 to three. If one were faced with people standing immediately outside one's home or next to the gate of entry into work shouting and screaming abuse, one would be entitled to expect protection from not only any physical violence but verbal assaults, threats and intimidation. 
 I know from my constituents how extremely frightened some of them have become because of the activities of groups of people who appear close to their homes to shout abuse and threaten violence. Many of my constituents live in fear of their lives because of the invaluable work that they do. They do their best to keep their addresses and phone numbers confidential but, inevitably, that is not always possible. It is also not right that they have to try to do that. Whatever the rights and wrongs of animal experimentation—now is not the time to go into them—we should provide protection and not allow people to be intimidated, harassed or threatened for doing what they are legally employed to do. 
 I hope that the Minister understands the serious points that I am trying to make. We discussed them in a Westminster Hall debate a few months ago, and I know that the Government are examining what they can do. Indeed, I pay tribute to the work that they have done already in protecting people, especially the employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences. However, more can be done, and the two new clauses are further steps. I hope that the Government will treat them sympathetically.

Nick Hawkins: I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Like him, I have pharmaceutical companies in my constituency, and I have also followed, with approval, much that the Government have done to toughen up still further the laws that we introduced when we were in Government.
 I pay tribute to what Ministers have done, not only the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, but other Home Office Ministers in the previous Parliament. As a member of the shadow Home Office team, I worked with them and Labour Back Benchers to toughen up the law. I take the opportunity also to mention the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). He is not a member of this Committee, but he did a great deal of work on a previous Bill in Committee on which I was the Conservative spokesman. Between us, we managed to improve previous legislation to give further protection for research scientists. 
 As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, this is not the right occasion to go into the rights and wrongs of animal experimentation. However, like members of the Conservative Government, Ministers have said time after time that research scientists who are carrying out lawful work should not have to live in fear of their lives. Employees of the companies based in Surrey Heath, such as Novartis and Eli Lilly, are constantly telling me that we need to ensure that the extremists in 
 the animal rights movement, who behave like terrorists, are not a threat to them and their families. 
 We all remember some of the appalling events that have taken place, in particular when a scientist in the west country had a bomb placed under his car by the terrorists. When the bomb went off, the force of the blast went sideways, luckily missing the scientist but unfortunately injuring an innocent bystander—a young woman pushing her child in a buggy along the pavement beside the scientist's car. All parliamentarians recognise the need to provide further protection, and as I have a similar constituency interest as my hon. Friend, I thought that it was important reinforce the point. 
 I hope that even if the Minister cannot accept the precise wording of the new clauses, he will say that he understands the spirit behind them and that he will be prepared perhaps to table Government amendments to incorporate that spirit. If he has any doubts about that, may I urge the hon. Gentleman to confirm that that he will talk to some of his hon. Friends, such as the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), a distinguished cancer scientist who spoke about these issues, and the hon. Member for South Thanet, who has pursued these issues in the past? We all recognise that there is a constant battle to ensure that people carrying out their own law-abiding research are protected against extremists. 
 There is a national interest. Britain has been a home of research science for a century and more. I declare my personal interest. I think that I am the only Member both of whose parents were research scientists. They are both retired and neither of them worked with animals. However, if one grows up in a family where one's parents are involved in research science, one understands the crucial importance of maintaining Britain's position at the forefront of technological developments. I cannot stress too strongly how important I consider these matters. I hope that we will have the same constructive response from the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as I have had from other Ministers.

Tony McNulty: I recognise, as do the Government, the problems that new clauses 3 and 4 are designed to address. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire talked about protesters outside homes and on the front lawn or drive. He will know that that can be dealt with under section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. His wider point about protesters outside the home but off the drive or the front lawn was well made.
 I fully accept that it is entirely unacceptable for a small minority of animal rights extremists to attempt to stop individuals and companies going about their legitimate business. It is important that the message gets through and that the public appreciate that the biotechnological and pharmaceutical industries are doing valuable work and understand the methods of some of those who oppose them. The Government recognise and support the right to legitimate peaceful protest, as does the Committee, but we do not and should not tolerate protests that are violent or intimidatory. 
 There is a clear and ongoing campaign by some animal rights activists to intimidate individuals and businesses in a way that is unacceptable and often unlawful. Such activities include criminal damage, vandalism, threats, malicious communications, and harassment in the form of protest outside the homes of those who work in the bioscience industries and their suppliers, as the hon. Gentleman described. He highlights some real concerns and makes some serious points. We always anticipate keeping public order legislation under review, and with the indulgence of the Committee we would like to take the points away to consider them further and to decide whether we need to return to them at a later stage. 
 On behalf of my ministerial colleague on the Committee I can assure the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that we will give due consideration to new clauses 3 and 4. We first need to consider the drafting to see whether they do what they purport to do. If we feel that we need to come back at a later stage, we will do so. On that basis I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.

James Paice: That is the sort of constructive response that I was hoping that the Minister would give. I am grateful to him. Obviously it would be daft to pursue the matter to the extreme. Before engaging in the formalities, may I seek confirmation from the Minister that it is not just a question of keeping the matter under review, but that the Government are considering what can be done to improve the situation? I would not expect the Minister to know as it is not his Department, but in a debate in Westminster Hall two or three months ago the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) stated that the Government were not just keeping the matter under review, but were actively considering what could be done to improve the situation. I therefore hope that keeping it under review is not simply nice words, but that a positive approach will be taken to examine how the legislation can be improved, so that we can protect those whom the Minister and I would wish to protect. If the Minister wishes to intervene, I am happy to give way.

Tony McNulty: The broader view to take, as any Government would, is of the overall public order legislation, which needs to be kept constantly under review. As the hon. Gentleman said, active consideration of those specific purposes is taking place, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen. We want to take away the new clauses to see whether it is appropriate, germane and feasible to do anything with the Bill in that area.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister, because that is very much what I wanted to hear. The Bill provides an opportunity for the Government to do whatever they conclude is necessary to make the law more effective. I identified the Bill as a potential vehicle: hence the debate on the new clauses. I hope that the Government, even if they decide that the new clauses are not appropriate, will use the Bill as a vehicle for toughening up the legislation and making it
 more enforceable. As we all know, such legislative vehicles do not come by every day, and it is important to use the opportunities when they arise. I am grateful for the Minister's undertaking and response and look forward to hearing his further views on the matter, or those of the Under-Secretary, later in the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 - Anti-social behaviour: landlords'

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 96, in
clause 12, page 8, line 41, at end insert— 
 '(1A) Each Local Housing Authority must, not later than three months after the commencement of section 12 of the AntiSocial Behaviour Act 2003, publish guidance concerning antisocial behaviour in social housing in its area and procedures for dealing with it.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 134, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 1, after 'prepare', insert 'after consultation with tenants'.
 Amendment No. 135, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 3, after 'for', insert 
 'resolving disputes, reducing the level of antisocial behaviour and'.
 Amendment No. 213, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 4, at end insert— 
 '(c) procedures for preventing occurrences of antisocial behaviour; 
 (d) procedures for providing support and rehabilitation services to those who have engaged in antisocial behaviour.'.
 Amendment No. 214, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 4, at end insert— 
 '(2A) In formulating the policy and procedures under subsection (2), the landlord must have regard to— 
 (a) the homelessness strategy of each local housing authority in whose district the landlord owns housing accommodation; 
 (b) the crime and disorder strategy of each local housing authority in whose district the landlord owns housing accommodation; 
 (c) the duties and powers under the Children Act 1989 (c.41) of each local authority in whose district the landlord owns housing accommodation.'.
 Amendment No. 97, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 7, at end insert 
 'and prepared in accordance with the guidance issued under subsection (1A).'.
 Amendment No. 136, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 15, at end insert— 
 '(c) must be sent to all tenants.'.
 Amendment No. 98, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 18, at end insert 
 'who is or may become a tenant of that landlord or to any person'.
 Amendment No. 137, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 19, at end insert— 
 '( ) In preparing and reviewing antisocial behaviour policies and procedures the landlord shall consult such public or local authorities, 
voluntary organisations or other persons as they consider appropriate.'.
 Amendment No. 192, in 
clause 12, page 9, leave out lines 20 to 25.
 Amendment No. 235, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 25, at end insert— 
 '( ) The landlord must also— 
 (a) record the number and nature of complaints made about antisocial behaviour; and 
 (b) monitor action taken to resolve the complaints.'.
 Amendment No. 215, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 28, at end insert— 
 '(10) ''Homelessness strategy'' has the same meaning as in the Homelessness Act 2002 (c.7). 
 (11) ''Crime and disorder strategy'' has the same meaning as in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37).'.

James Paice: Obviously this is what the Minister came for, and over the next few hours we will be considering the section of the Bill dealing with housing and antisocial behaviour by tenants.
 The first group contains four amendments that I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, and one that we tabled jointly with the Liberal Democrats. The remaining amendments were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, so I will not address those in detail. 
 The main issue is one of consistency in the application of the legislation. I believe it to be necessary—others may take a different view—to put into statute a measure to deal with antisocial behaviour by tenants, and I am therefore not opposed to the principle of what the Government are trying to do. However, I also believe that such measures should be applied consistently. 
 It has been argued that such legislation is not necessary, or that existing legislation is adequate to deal with antisocial behaviour. Many hon. Members will have heard quoted the example of Manchester, where the housing authorities are able to use existing legislation to deal satisfactorily with antisocial behaviour. I do not, however, oppose the principle of introducing legislation, despite its controversial nature. Our amendments are designed to introduce into the Bill an element of consistency and reasonableness, which I believe to be lacking. 
 Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 relate to the matter of consistency. The clause requires all social landlords to publish a policy on antisocial behaviour. A vast number of commentators have argued that requiring landlords to publish a policy does not in itself achieve anything. It does not impose a duty on them to do anything about it, but simply to publish a policy. However, I accept that publishing a policy would be a significant step forward. It does not impose any obligation to enforce that policy and, clearly, if it is not enforced, it will quickly come into disrepute. However, there needs to be some consistency within a locality. 
 In many local authority areas there are registered social landlords, housing associations and local 
 authority landlords, and sometimes they share the ownership of developments. Several housing associations may have adjoining properties, and they need a consistent approach to the problem of tenants' antisocial behaviour. However, nothing in the clause will encourage consistency. 
 Amendment No. 96 would require each housing authority to publish guidance on antisocial behaviour in social housing in its area and guidance on procedures for dealing with it. Amendment No. 97 would require the landlords, in preparing their policy, to have regard to the guidance issued by the housing authority, and that is a clear step forward. 
 There are already proposals that the Secretary of State should be involved in the case of local authorities and housing action trusts, and RSLs would have to comply with guidance from the relevant authority. That is an attempt to address the matter, but it introduces a degree of inconsistency because there will be different sets of guidance. I do not know why the Secretary of State has to be involved, but the guidance in any local authority area should be consistent. The obligation should be on the local authority to produce the guidance, so that however many RSLs are within the area they must have regard to it. Why do the Government want to do it differently? 
 Amendment No. 98 would require all tenants to be given a copy of the policy and procedures. The Minister may argue that that is covered in the clause, but it is not. It is important to amend clause 12 to ensure that the landlord is obliged to provide all tenants, not just those who request it, with a copy of the policy and procedures, not just out of courtesy but because tenants could not claim ignorance if they were later accused of transgressing the policy and procedures. 
 As I said, amendment No. 192 is a probing amendment. Some guidance is necessary, but subsection (7) will lead to confusion and it should be dealt with as described in amendments Nos. 96 and 97. 
 We are more than happy about the joint amendment No. 235, which relates to the important matter of monitoring and recording complaints. If a landlord is to go to court to seek a demoted tenancy he will need such information. It is therefore logical that the Bill should include the obligation to record the number and nature of complaints and the action taken to deal with them in order to justify a subsequent claim for a demoted tenancy. 
 Those are my reasons for tabling the amendments. It would be absurd for tenants in adjoining properties under different landlords to be covered by different procedures. The amendments address the issue of consistency in the application of the measure in a local housing authority area. If there is a better way of achieving that aim, so be it; I am always open to be persuaded.

Matthew Green: I welcome the Minister to his first active engagement with the Committee.
 The Liberal Democrats tabled a series of amendments, a joint amendment has been discussed, 
 and I shall deal briefly with the Conservative amendments in a moment. 
 Amendment No. 134 would ensure that tenants were consulted before the landlord adopted the procedures, which is sensible because involving tenants in drawing up the procedures may give them a greater sense of ownership of them and a feeling that they are more relevant. The tenants may want more stringent procedures than those that their housing association or council propose. Housing associations and councils often have tenant groups that can act as consultation groups. Such a requirement may not be needed in the Bill, but it is at least best practice, and I would welcome the Minister's confirmation of that. 
 Amendment No. 135 is designed to ensure that the landlord takes a more proactive approach when dealing with antisocial behaviour, rather than dealing only with its consequences. It would place on landlords the obligation to help to resolve disputes and to reduce antisocial behaviour to a reasonable level, as outlined in their policy, not just to deal with its occurrence. 
 Amendment No. 213 would add two new paragraphs, (c) and (d), to subsection (2). It would ensure the inclusion of prevention, support and rehabilitation in the antisocial behaviour policies and procedures that social landlords are required to publish under the clause. It would also ensure that behavioural problems are tackled more effectively, and that tenancies are sustained through the provision of appropriate support, rehabilitation and resettlement services. I thank Shelter for providing much of the information for the amendment. Proactive and imaginative schemes for dealing with antisocial tenants have been very successful in certain parts of the country. This is a chance for councils or housing associations to work effectively with the tenants, and we do not want it to be missed by rushing through to the next stage of a demoted tenancy. That is the thrust of the amendment. 
 Amendment No. 136 is similar to Conservative amendment No. 98, but would go down a different route by inserting a new paragraph (c) into subsection (6), so that a copy of a landlord's policy and procedure would have to be sent to all tenants. There are various ways of expressing that. The Minister may say that this is best practice and that it will be included in the guidance. I hope that he will at least say that it is best practice. I would have liked it to be included in the Bill. 
 Amendment No. 137 would insert a new paragraph at the end of subsection (6) and encourage landlords, when reviewing their antisocial behaviour policies, to consult other authorities and organisations with experience in this field, so that they are not merely writing those off their own bat. There would also be consultation with the public. After all, the thrust of the Bill is to protect the public from antisocial behaviour, so one hopes that they will have some say in the drafting of the guidance. Again, whether the amendment's wording is right remains to be seen, 
 but it would ensure that there was greater consultation with regard to antisocial behaviour. 
 Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 also have the support of Shelter. They would ensure that there was a consistent multi-agency approach to tackling antisocial behaviour, with adherence to the work of relevant agencies and strategies across each local authority. Amendment No. 214 would make the landlord have regard to the homelessness strategy of the local housing authority, to the crime and disorder strategy and to the duties and powers under the Children Act 1989. Amendment No. 215 would support amendment No. 214. Some of that may be expected to happen anyway, but we should like to hear from the Minister precisely how the Government would ensure that it happened. As I said, those strong amendments were tabled with a lot of help from Shelter. 
 Amendment No. 235 is the joint amendment. We heard about it from the Conservative spokesman. It would simply ensure that the landlord also recorded occurrences of antisocial behaviour. That makes a lot of sense; if a case went to court, such information would be helpful in a number of instances. 
 It might seem as if many of these amendments would impose extra duties on, for instance, housing associations, but we have consulted associations as to whether they would be onerous, and many of them carry out most of these duties already. The amendments would ensure that we bring some of the other bodies up to the standard of the best associations, or councils if there is still council housing. As I said, the duties are clearly not too onerous, because many associations are fulfilling all of them already. 
 We support Conservative amendments Nos. 96 and 97. The Conservatives have done the Committee a service by proposing that the local authority publish guidance, which could be taken into account, as we have heard, to establish a level playing field. Amendment No. 98 is broadly the same as our amendment No. 136; it just deals with the issue differently. I, too, am interested to hear from the Minister why the Secretary of State needs so many powers.

Shona McIsaac: I shall speak briefly. Mine may be a somewhat technical query about the amendments and the clause. It relates to leasehold property. My hon. Friend the Minister has been consulting various people about the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, and knows of my interest in that issue. More than 20,000 properties in north-east Lincolnshire, mainly in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, are leasehold houses. One thing that became evident from the discussions on that Bill was that, in law, those homeowners—they have mortgages—are classified as tenants, and the freeholder is regarded as the landlord.
 I want to know how the provision would impact on homeowners in my area. As I said, it is a fairly technical point, and the Minister may want to write to me about how the amendments and the clause would affect my local residents. I have come across unscrupulous behaviour by freeholders with regard 
 to forfeiture of leases, and I do not want the clause to give unscrupulous freeholders more reason to use forfeiture proceedings to seize a person's home, sell it and take all the profits regardless of the fact that someone else has paid all the mortgage on the property.

Tony McNulty: I appreciate and understand the concern articulated by Opposition Members and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). We must understand that the search for consistency, which is right and proper, should be within a national framework. That is why we believe that it is appropriate that the guidance is dictated from the centre.
 We must also remember two points. First, the existing reporting mechanisms for local housing authority tenants and organisations and for RSLs are distinct, and I shall return to that point in a moment. Secondly, we need as far as possible to allow the autonomy necessary for quick, local, flexible responses to specific circumstances in a given locality. That, in a nutshell, is why I have some difficulties with amendment No. 96. 
 As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, the amendment would place a requirement on local housing authorities to publish guidance on antisocial behaviour in social housing in its area and the procedures for dealing with it. It would also require the policies and procedures that social landlords have a duty to publish under clause 12 to follow that guidance. Although the hon. Gentleman said that the intention of the amendment is to ensure strategic guidance and consistency in the way that antisocial behaviour is tackled, like many later amendments, it would not achieve that. However, existing clauses will do so, for reasons that I shall come to. 
 There are several problems with the amendment, not least the fact that it confuses the local authority's strategic role with its landlord responsibilities. Imposing an extra duty would result in some duplication. As I hinted, it would confuse the lines of accountability for registered social landlords. The activities of RSLs, including their action to take on housing-related antisocial behaviour, are regulated by the Housing Corporation, and any formal or binding guidance to RSLs must be issued by the corporation. The local housing authority would have to issue guidance to itself, which is an unnecessary duplication of work, and as I have said, it would remove or lessen the autonomy of RSLs to decide the best ways of dealing with antisocial behaviour depending on the circumstances within wider strategic guidance. 
 I understand where hon. Members are coming from, but I do not agree with how they get there or that the amendments would improve on the provisions already in the Bill.

James Paice: I half follow the logic of the Minister's argument, but will he elaborate on how he believes that subsection (7) will improve consistency. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will set guidance for housing authorities and housing action trusts and the
 Housing Corporation will set it for registered social landlords. The Bill builds in an inconsistency, and I do not entirely follow his argument about why my proposition, which would at least create total consistency within the area of a local authority, would produce any more problems than having two different ''authorities'' issuing guidance.

Tony McNulty: The point at which the hon. Gentleman and I part is in seeking strategic consistency. We agree that there should be a strategic framework in which to deal with antisocial behaviour in social housing. The chase is for that consistency at a local authority level; surely we want consistency at national level. Subsection (7) merely reflects existing the accountability lines. Happily for me I am no lawyer, and I cannot begin to think about the unpicking of legislation that will be necessary in respect of the Housing Corporation, its relations with RSLs, how the two will relate to local authorities and how they all relate to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The amendment would create an unnecessary layer on top of existing levels of accountability. It must be right to have a strategic oversight at national level and to preserve a degree of autonomy at local level for housing authorities or RSLs.
 Although I agree with the hunt for consistency, it must be at a wider level than the hon. Gentleman's amendment suggested. It follows, too—recent experience has shown it to be the case—that there is a strong argument that the guidance issued by the Housing Corporation to RSLs on how to manage antisocial behaviour in the context of the legislation should have to consider, materially and relevantly, the guidance issued by the First Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister, to HATs and local housing authorities. Although from the Bill it appears that there is plenty of scope for the two to be entirely distinct and to go off at random and in different directions, if I had anything to do with it I would ensure that the guidance issued by the Department and by the Housing Corporation is the same. However, I emphasise that we want the strategic guidance at national level so that we know roughly how the housing authorities, HATs and RSLs are being guided in dealing with antisocial behaviour. It is at local level that further autonomy is needed.

Liz Blackman: It would be a way forward if there were a requirement to have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance, as that would strengthen consistency. Strategic guidance also spreads best practice.

Tony McNulty: I endorse what my hon. Friend says. We would need to reflect equally the local authorities' input and responsibilities, rather than those of the local housing authorities, in a range of other local partnerships, not least crime and disorder partnerships and others in the local domain, such as homelessness strategies. I shall return to such matters shortly.
 Amendments Nos. 136 and 98 would require landlords to provide each tenant, and anyone who may become a tenant, with a copy of the policies and procedures. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was ahead of me in anticipating my response, which is that the proposal is unnecessarily 
 prescriptive and may put a provision in the Bill that in economic terms is not necessary and in terms of efficacy is not the most appropriate way to disseminate the necessary information. 
 The policies are not relevant simply to tenants: landlords may take out injunctions to protect leaseholders, lodgers, visitors to the locality and a landlord's staff. It would not be feasible or cost-effective to identify anyone who may benefit from knowing about the policies and provide them with a copy. The existing provision enables anyone, whatever their link with the landlord, to obtain a copy, and that is preferable. 
 I do not mean to be churlish, but amendment No. 134 is completely unnecessary, like many proposals that come from the Liberal Democrats. Local authority landlords already have a statutory duty to consult their tenants on any matter to do with housing management. The Housing Corporation also requires RSLs to consult tenants on housing management issues. Wide concerns about consultation on various matters, including antisocial behaviour, are already taken into account in existing measures. 
 Amendment No. 137 would have little practical effect and might even increase landlords' work loads unnecessarily. Nothing is stopping landlords consulting any body or person whom they want to consult when preparing their policies and procedures. In any case, the amendment would not require landlords who did not consider it appropriate to consult anyone else. It simply states, ''as they consider appropriate.'' It is betwixt and between: either they do not have to do it and it produces unnecessary burdens, or they should do it, in which case the amendment should be worded entirely differently. 
 I suspect that the guidance, when issued, will exhort local housing authorities, HATs and RSLs to use the broadest policy context when drawing up their specific local guidance. It is entirely unnecessary to say about such an important dimension of housing policy and antisocial behaviour that because it is not in the Bill, RSLs, HATs or local housing authorities need have no regard to crime and disorder partnerships, existing homelessness strategies and all the other elements. We need to see all these elements in the wider context of what is going on at local authority level, county level and in housing generally, as we did with the limited elements of previous clauses. The fact that they are not in the Bill does not mean that we are prescribing that RSLs, HATs or local housing authorities should have no regard for those wider, very germane and relevant policies.

Annette Brooke: I, too, welcome the Minister to the Committee. I want to ask a question that I have asked in debates on other legislation: is he convinced that all housing associations of any size participate sufficiently in local crime and disorder partnerships? I understand that there is no requirement for them to participate, and I have sought such a requirement because I am sure that some housing associations do not participate fully. Will the Minister at least confirm that there
 should be some recognition of those points in the guidance?

Tony McNulty: I happily concede that it may well be appropriate for there to be an exhortation in the guidance for housing authorities to be more fully involved in crime and disorder partnerships, and in best practice and the wider issues, as the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said. It may also be appropriate for them to be involved in the wider context of local strategic partnerships and to some extent in whatever reasonable bodies follow thereafter, and we may want to include that in the guidance.
 As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, best practice among many RSLs in particular means getting as fully involved in their localities as they can. That is right and proper, and I am sure that those elements will be reflected in the guidance to the extent that it is germane to the execution of an efficient and effective antisocial behaviour strategy. 
 As I said, amendment No. 135 would add little to the clause, and confuses matters as it mixes up procedure and policy, which is not useful. The intention may be to ensure that some statement of strategic matters appears in the landlords' published statements on antisocial behaviour. The clause currently does not set out details about what the word ''policy'' should cover, as it should be left to the individual landlord in the light of their unique circumstances.

Vernon Coaker: A concern arising from the amendments and from different clauses in different parts of the Bill is that it is one thing for a policy to be written down and another to ensure that that policy is enforced and is worth the paper that it is written on. This is a crucial clause: it has an impact on many of our communities, and if we do not get it right, we will have failed the people in those communities. The fundamental question is how we ensure that the improved and increased powers will be used and that policies will be enforced, so that something is done to tackle the problem that some of our tenants face.

Tony McNulty: That is an entirely fair point that will be dealt in part in guidance and in part by existing mechanisms. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that when RSLs have to draw up antisocial behaviour policies and procedures, they will be included in their audited accounts, which go directly back to the Housing Corporation. The process of going back to the Secretary of State in this instance, and to me in the case of housing action trusts, which are being wound down, is not dissimilar. There are mechanisms through which they will be brought to book.
 My hon. Friend is entirely right. We could have the most eloquently or powerfully drafted policy, but if it does not have the teeth to bite on our streets and estates it is worthless. That is why I said that I understand and take to heart the real concerns that hon. Members have expressed. However, we feel that the strategic consistency that we all seek should be at national level, which is why the guidance will be so important. There should also be a degree of local autonomy, because no one will know better how to 
 implement and interpret measures to deal with antisocial behaviour than those close to the streets and estates.

Annette Brooke: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: Let me just finish one small point as it wraps up four amendments and then I will happily give way. Amendments Nos. 213 to 215 and 235 would place unnecessary additional requirements on landlords when producing policies and procedures. Such matters are more appropriately found in guidance. I am mindful that it may appear even at this stage that we are talking about guidance in the form of a small local Yellow Pages, but these are important matters that are better swept up in that framework than on the face of the Bill.

Annette Brooke: Does the Minister agree that a strategic approach would mean adopting a staged approach in the use of preventive measures? Should there not be something in the Bill to say that there are many other supportive measures that should be used, without being too specific, before the extreme measures are taken?

Tony McNulty: In part the hon. Lady answered her own question when she said, ''without being too specific''. The purpose of legislation is to be as specific as possible, at least in a strategic sense. As legislators generally, rather than in a partisan fashion, we should resist shopping lists that try to include every possible notion in a policy statement or the procedures to enforce them. We know that there are local variations. There may be manifestations of antisocial behaviour in Dorset that are entirely distinct from those on the Essex coast, in Surrey Heath or in Cambridgeshire.
 I take the hon. Lady's point entirely, but I do not think that it is appropriate to put it on the face of the Bill that all those elements, preventive or otherwise, should be included as part of the policy. It is far more appropriate to provide in guidance some notional checklist of what should be in the process. That is not to detract from what she says, but we feel that those elements will be more appropriately dealt with in that fashion, because if we take the approach she suggests, as night follows day, things will be left out and the legislation will then be subject to judicial review or other challenge because something has not been included. We do not want to become mired in the courts or judicial review when the people on the streets and estates in all our constituencies want something done. That is a lengthy response, but it is a serious point. 
 During the course of our deliberations this afternoon, I will endeavour to find out from the people who do not exist in this Room because we do not acknowledge them what shape the guidance will take, because that will be useful to the Committee now and subsequently. The balance between what is in the Bill and what is in the guidance is always a matter of debate, but I hope that people will accept that the way forward is to seek strategic consistency on antisocial behaviour policies and procedures at national level, while leaving scope for as great a degree of local autonomy as possible so that people can react within our framework to their local circumstances. 
 The import and direction of most of the amendments under consideration differ from that approach, albeit for laudable reasons, and the debate has explored some of the areas they highlight. However, in the spirit of co-operation that I am desperately trying to pursue, I ask that the amendments be either resisted or withdrawn.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for the care with which he replied to the many points that the hon. Member for Ludlow and I raised. In relation to my amendments Nos. 96 and 97, I am not entirely convinced that we need that strategic consistency. I believe that there are local variations that might justify distinctions in policy in different parts of the country, and that such areas should be entrusted to local authorities rather than to centralised decision making. That is part of the devolution of power that I would like to see.
 Nevertheless, I understand where the Minister is coming from and fully accept his commitment that he will do his best to ensure that the guidance from the Secretary of State is as similar as possible to that issued by the Housing Corporation. I also understand, as a non-lawyer, that we do not want to start unpicking the law on channels of accountability. For those reasons, I am loth to pursue the issue further, but before I commit myself to that position, I look at the hon. Member for Ludlow in case he wishes to intervene.

Matthew Green: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. The Minister has indicated that the majority of the issues raised by our amendments will be dealt with in guidance, and that the Government share our intent.

James Paice: In that case—

Tony McNulty: May I intervene?

James Paice: Of course.

Tony McNulty: I am grateful, not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes is sitting behind me. The only point that I missed out was her point about leaseholders. I will, as invited, explore the matter further in writing with my hon. Friend and the Committee. I could not enjoy the rest of the Committee while she was sitting there—

Shona McIsaac: Scowling.

Tony McNulty: Yes, if I did not pick up on her point.

James Paice: I should not dream of intervening in the relationships between the Minister and his Back Benchers, although I think that there would have been an opportunity for the hon. Lady to raise the matter under a later group of amendments, when I intend to raise a similar issue. However, no one should accuse me of not being generous even to the Liberals in allowing the hon. Member for Ludlow to make his comments. I also appreciate the Minister's reply, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Injunctions against anti-social behaviour on application of certain social landlords

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 138, in
clause 13, page 10, line 4, leave out 'capable of'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 232, in 
clause 13, page 10, line 4, leave out 'capable of causing' and insert 
 'causing or is likely to cause'.
 Amendment No. 139, in 
clause 13, page 10, line 4, leave out 'or annoyance'.
 Amendment No. 193, in 
clause 13, page 10, line 5, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
 Amendment No. 140, in 
clause 13, page 10, line 12, after 'engaging', insert 'or'.
 Amendment No. 141, in 
clause 13, page 10, line 12, leave out 'or threatens to engage'.
 Amendment No. 142, in 
clause 13, page 10, line 14, leave out 'capable of'.
 Amendment No. 143, in 
clause 13, page 10, line 28, leave out 'or threatening to use'.
 Amendment No. 146, in 
clause 14, page 13, line 9, leave out 
 'or has threatened to engage'.
 Amendment No. 147, in 
clause 14, page 13, line 39, leave out 
 'or has threatened to engage'.

Matthew Green: We come to the crux of this part of the Bill—injunctions against antisocial behaviour used on application. I shall run through our amendments as quickly as I can. Some are designed to establish the Government's thinking on the detail of the clause.
 Amendment No. 138 would remove the phrase ''capable of'' from proposed new section 153A(1)(a), making it read: 
''This section applies to conduct . . . which is causing nuisance or annoyance to any person''.
 We want the Government to clarify what they mean by conduct ''capable of'' causing nuisance or annoyance. Excessively loud music, late night parties and people hanging around outside might be capable of causing nuisance to people, but surrounding tenants may be entirely happy that that is happening. I accept that that is unlikely, but we are testing why the Government have used the phrase ''capable of causing nuisance'' rather than ''is causing nuisance''. 
 Amendment No. 139 is designed to test the difference between nuisance and annoyance. Nuisance is an understandable condition, but many different things could be described as causing annoyance to neighbours, some of which would not be at all reasonable. What do the Government class as annoyance? There is a clearer line on nuisance. 
 In passing, I should say that we do not support Conservative amendment No. 193. Using ''or'' instead 
 of ''and'' would mean that the proposed new section could apply to conduct 
''which directly or indirectly relates to or affects the housing management functions of a relevant landlord''
 without reference to the nuisance test. I think that the Conservatives want the amendment to work differently, but it would not quite achieve their aim. 
 Amendment Nos. 140 and 141 go together. They are similar to previous amendments and relate to the idea that the people in question should be actually engaged in behaviour that causes a problem. Subsection (3) talks about a person who 
''threatens to engage in conduct to which this section applies.''
 I am uncertain about the condition of threatening to engage in antisocial behaviour, as the requirement that the person is engaging or has engaged in such conduct would be sufficient. Will the Minister explain why it is necessary to include the other condition? Does he have in mind specific circumstances in which it might apply? We are concerned that the wording is not tight enough, so we seek clarification. 
 Amendment No. 142 would remove the phrase ''capable of'', again tightening the drafting. It is the same as amendment No. 138, and the question is whether any conduct is causing a nuisance, rather than is just capable of causing a nuisance. Amendment No. 143 is similar to amendments Nos. 140 and 141. If it were made, subsection (1) would refer to conduct which 
''involves using . . . housing accommodation owned or managed by a relevant landlord''.
 We are seeking to discover what problem the Government see in using the idea that someone might do something rather than actually doing it. 
 Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 are along the same lines. Clause 14 includes: 
''or has threatened to engage in conduct''.
 That is perhaps more understandable if someone has threatened, for example, to play his music all night long every night. It may be slightly more relevant than in the implied circumstances in which someone has not actually engaged in antisocial behaviour but might have done. 
 There is a broad theme to the amendments. I hope that the Minister can explain why those phrases should remain in the Bill.

James Paice: I do not intend to comment in detail on all the amendments spoken to by the hon. Member for Ludlow before I come to the two standing in my name. I understand his approach and support the principle of trying to find out what the Government are seeking to achieve. I am not going to say that I support or oppose the detail of his amendments, but I support the objective of inquiry behind them and indeed behind my amendments, in particular amendment No. 193.
 The hon. Member for Ludlow stated that he could not support that amendment, and indeed I would have been horrified if he could. That is not a partisan comment: I would not support it myself if someone were daft enough to press it to a vote. It was tabled 
 simply to challenge the Government to remove ''and'' and insert ''or'', as the hon. Gentleman said, and thus separate the issue of management from nuisance and annoyance. That would not be wise, but it enables me in a different way from that chosen by the hon. Gentleman to ask the Minister to explain what he means by ''nuisance and annoyance''. It is part of the overall challenge to the Government. I have tabled other amendments on later clauses that in their own way similarly challenge the Government. 
 I have great hopes that the Minister might accept amendment No. 232. The reason is straightforward: its phrasing is quite pedantic, but as the Minister and the Committee will know, the Bill follows closely the Housing Act 1996, passed by the Conservative Government, which brought in the concept of introductory tenancies in which the issue of antisocial behaviour was addressed. It seems logical that we should use the same phraseology in the Bill. The proposal came from the Law Society, so with its support I have tabled the amendment to amend the phraseology of clause 13 to retain the current definition—which is proven to be workable—in the 1996 Act by deleting ''capable of causing'' and replacing it with ''causing or is likely to cause''. It is a small change, but it has the merit of consistency with existing legislation that has been proved to work. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on that modest proposal.

Tony McNulty: Without pre-empting what I shall say subsequently on amendment No. 232, I admit that I shall probably disappoint the hon. Gentleman. The essence of clause 13 and, I accept, the thrust of many of the amendments is that people's behaviour has consequences. That is the key. If there is a theme to the Liberal Democrat amendments, it is to narrow our ability and limit the powers of HATs, RSLs and local housing authorities to secure injunctions and correct antisocial behaviour. I am sure that that is not the purpose of the amendments, but it would be the outcome.
 Amendments Nos. 138 and 142 would limit the use of injunctions to circumstances in which behaviour had caused nuisance or annoyance to a relevant person, rather than circumstances in which behaviour was capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. That would require a victim to be identified before the landlord could take action and would severely limit what landlords could do in the broader proactive and preventive sense to try to arrest the early stage of antisocial behaviour before it turned into something that ultimately had real consequences. 
 The amendment would prevent third parties from acting as witnesses where a victim was too scared or intimidated to come to court, which is a real concern. For example, some landlords use professional witnesses on estates where a fear of reprisals has prevented tenants from coming forward to give evidence, not least because their experience of raising their head above the parapet in the past has been sorely disappointing and found wanting. 
 Some of the most successful schemes that are in place to arrest the early stage of antisocial behaviour and restore greater confidence in local communities 
 are the various street neighbourhood and community warden schemes in which the professional witness model or duty is part and parcel of the role. That works terribly well. If the Bill referred only to circumstances in which nuisance or annoyance had been caused, that would severely limit the proactive nature of what authorities could do. 
 The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was right: amendment No. 232 refers back to the language of the Housing Act 1996. However, it would narrow the ability of social landlords to obtain an injunction to occasions on which the behaviour was causing nuisance or annoyance or on which it was likely to do so. We chose the language of clause 13 very carefully to make the test easier, in the context of being proactive and preventive as well as simply reactive. 
 I am afraid that I have to pretend to be a lawyer now, at least in some regard, and go through the notion of nuisance and annoyance, which underpins at least some of the amendments. That phrase has been readily understood by the courts. The same wording is used in existing housing injunctions under the powers in the 1996 Act and in the nuisance grounds for possession applicable to secure and assured tenants. The courts have said that those words should be given their usual meaning: nuisance and annoyance are given their ordinary everyday meanings. 
 Behaviour must be such as to annoy an ordinary person, not an ultra-sensitive person. That relates not least to some of the matters that the Committee discussed under previous provisions and will probably discuss again. The Bill is about antisocial behaviour that deviates from the norm, not about putting everything in the context of how someone ultra-sensitive—probably like me—would react to the circumstances. For example, in one case a possession order was made because a tenant kept cats in the back garden that caused nuisance and annoyance to several adjoining occupiers. Were there only one or two cats? No, there were 38. Such a number can be a nuisance and an annoyance in the wider sense. 
 Legal argument has tended to focus not on the meaning of nuisance and annoyance, but on whether it is reasonable to grant an injunction or possession order on the basis of the nuisance and annoyance. The phraseology is broadly interpreted in a normal sense and, as ever, the test is of the reasonableness of granting an injunction or possession order on that basis. That is why the words ''nuisance'' and ''annoyance'' are included in the clause.

James Paice: May I take the Minister back to the phrase ''capable of causing'', as opposed to ''likely to cause''? I assure him that I have no desire to make the barrier tougher to overcome—we want the measures to work and therefore do not want barriers. However, can the Minister explain his reasoning? What is the distinction between the words ''capable of causing'' and ''likely to cause''? That seems to be the nub of why he is resisting amendment No. 232 and the consistency with existing legislation. The two phrases seem to mean the same thing, and it would therefore be better to have consistency.

Tony McNulty: Although my previous experience in Committee is limited, the hon. Gentleman is, as ever, falling into the trap of thinking that English legislation is drafted in English. As I understand the matter, the key difficulty with the legalese is precisely to do with the word ''likely''. That word opens up legal arguments that focus on the probability that a particular conduct will cause nuisance or annoyance. However, I am assured that ''capable of'' is a far easier test that does not take us down the muddy inclines of a debate about tossing coins, throwing dice or other elements of probability theory. That sounds strange and arcane, but those who have the happy experience of being lawyers assure me that that is why the test is easier.

James Paice: Following his own logic, will the Minister table an amendment to the Bill to amend the 1996 Act? One type of phraseology is used in that Act in the section about antisocial behaviour in which introductory tenancies are mentioned. I am not going to argue with the Minister about the legalese, because neither of us can do so in great depth. However, it seems somewhat daft and odd that there is inconsistency between two pieces of legislation that deal with the same issue. From what the Minister said, I should think it would be logical to amend the 1996 Act if there is a problem with the word ''likely''.

Tony McNulty: If the hon. Gentleman refers to schedule 3 of the Bill, which is about repeals, he will find that sections 152 and 153 of the 1996 Act are repealed. If it will help and he wants, I can give the hon. Gentleman my copy of the 1996 Act, although sadly it is from the internet rather than an actual copy. However, he makes an entirely proper point: the Bill will supersede sections 152 and 153 of the 1996 Act, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said it should.

Vernon Coaker: May I return to the theme of enforcing the policies and the powers that we are introducing? The 1996 Act allowed injunctions in much more limited circumstances than the Bill proposes. The 1996 Act allowed injunctions to be taken out by local authorities and, in some circumstances, registered social landlords, but from my experience and from talking to hon. Friends and other hon. Members, I understand that those powers have not been used extensively. What hope does my hon. Friend have that the injunctions in the Bill, which are much more extensive and much more widely available, will actually be used?

Tony McNulty: What my hon. Friend has just said goes to the nub of the clause. If the amendments were accepted, we would more or less be back to the 1996 position and relatively limited success. The test in the Bill is easier in the legal sense, for reasons that I just outlined, and there is greater scope for RSLs, HATs and local housing authorities to be far more proactive. Although it might be unfair, that is broadly the context of sections 152 and 153 of the 1996 Act, under which the process was very often crisis driven and injunctions were secured way down the line as a last resort. In the context of the five clauses relating to housing, however, we believe that the ability to take the injunction route will have far more bite and work far more readily than the provisions of the 1996 Act.
 Hopefully, given the way in which the Bill has been drafted, and notwithstanding any acceptance of the amendments, RSLs, HATs and local housing authorities will be far more proactive as well as reactive. There will also be greater transparency, so that people know what is happening and why. Crucially, the Bill codifies the consequences of people's antisocial acts far more readily than the 1996 Act or any of the other principal Acts that preceded the Bill have done. That is the nub of the Bill, but it operates only if the amendments are not accepted. 
 Hon. Members will know that it is imperative to do something about threatened as well as actual behaviour. Within the confines of natural justice and the law it is imperative that we do something about the potential for intimidation, perceived intimidation, and perceived and subsequent antisocial behaviour. That is why I cannot emphasise enough that it is not sufficient to talk about things that have actually happened and respond to those alone. The real difficulty with the estates and streets about which we are talking is the threat and perceived threat of subsequent behaviour. That is why many of the amendments in the group go against the grain. We are trying to broaden the range of powers within which, in a strict legal sense, there is the ability to secure and pursue injunctions. 
 As I said, the threat of attack can be as distressing as the attack itself. It leaves the victim feeling frightened and unsafe, and it is only right that landlords are able to seek to protect people from distressing threatening behaviour by their tenants. I suggest that it would not be much comfort to the victim of constant threats to be told that action could not be taken because the threats had never been carried out. The victim can reasonably expect that threats will be followed by antisocial acts; equally, under the Bill, they can expect that action can and should be taken to prevent that. That is the thrust of the Bill, and it reveals the real difference between its provisions and the two sections of the 1996 Act to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling alluded.

Liz Blackman: Does the Minister agree that the clauses outline and enforce the fact that the measure is a threat as well as a reality and that it must be spelled out in plain English to the tenants? If they do not understand that the threshold is lower and the expectation of behaviour higher, the clauses will not be implemented in the way in which we want them to be.

Tony McNulty: I fully accept that. That goes to the heart of the clause 12. It is about not only setting the provisions in train, but about letting everyone know what has been determined. That is why, without returning to our previous debate, the degree of local autonomy is so important. There is no point in setting up elaborate consequences for people's actions and shifting thresholds that they are used to—I promised myself that I would not use that word, because it clearly has a resonance in the Committee to which I am not party—if they are not fully aware of the possible consequences through the injunction and the
 demotion routes, the second of which we will discuss later. I fully accept what my hon. Friend says.
 We have put the provisions together carefully, and the balance between threatened and actual behaviour, nuisance and annoyance and capability and likelihood of causing annoyance is designed to ensure a robust set of injunctive powers that will work effectively both proactively and reactively. The balance would be diluted by each amendment, so I ask hon. Members not to press the amendments.

Matthew Green: The Minister has clarified some of the reasons for the provisions in the clause. I am not sure that he has dealt with them all to everyone's satisfaction, although I suspect that he has done enough to satisfy his own side. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in
clause 13, page 10, line 19, leave out from 'or' to 'of' and insert 'within 100 metres'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendment No. 225. 
 Amendment No. 99, in 
clause 13, page 10, line 22, at end insert— 
 '(4A) ''Nuisance and Annoyance'' includes conduct which reasonably intrudes into the peaceful occupation of the properties of the relevant landlord including visitors to those properties and to harassment or intimidation of tenants and visitors.'.
 Amendment No. 144, in 
clause 13, page 10, leave out line 23.
 Amendment No. 101, in 
clause 13, page 10, line 25, after 'in', insert 'any'.
 Amendment No. 194, in 
clause 13, page 10, line 30, leave out 'immoral or'.
 Amendment No. 196, in 
clause 14, page 13, line 11, leave out 'immoral or'.

James Paice: The majority of the amendments in the group are Conservative amendments and there are two distinct themes. Amendment No. 100 stands as a reasonable amendment in itself, but it is designed to establish what the Government mean by
''the locality of the housing accommodation''
 in new section 153A to the Housing Act 1996. Subsection (4) states: 
''The second condition is that the conduct is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to . . . a person visiting the housing accommodation or otherwise engaged in lawful activity in or in the locality of the housing accommodation''.
 Amendment No. 100 would delete ''in the locality'' and insert ''within 100 metres''. Hon. Members might say that that figure is unreasonable and that it should be 20, 50 or 500 metres, but we need either a definition of ''locality'' or to be told who will decide what it is in any particular situation. 
 The Minister has described the difference between nuisance and annoyance, but I am not conscious of a meaningful definition of locality. Is it down to the landlord to decide, or does the Minister anticipate that a definition will be laid down in the Secretary of State's 
 guidance? If so, how can the Secretary of State possibly set guidance on the definition of a locality that will apply up and down the country? I am moving the amendment in an exploratory way. I am not saying that I will not press it, but I am more interested in the Minister's response than in the detail of whether 100 metres is the right figure. 
 I shall not speak to amendment No. 99, and the Minister need not bother either. He has already addressed the definition of a nuisance and annoyance, which is what the amendment pursues. Amendment No. 101, which would introduce one word, has also been addressed. 
 I wish to spend a few moments on amendments Nos. 194 and 196. They stand alone in comparison to the rest of the group. Our objective is to remove the words ''immoral or'' from the measure. I fully recognise that it is an ancient phraseology in law; no doubt, the Minister has briefing notes that explain the 1,001 places where it already appears in law, and he might therefore argue that to remove it would seem odd, but I wish to challenge the Minister on that point, for a number of reasons. 
 Immorality is a totally obsolete concept in the context of the Bill, which is preventing antisocial behaviour and tackling it when it happens. We all support that noble objective, although we our views on the way in which the Government are seeking to reach it may differ. However, by including the words ''immoral or'' in the Bill, we seem to be saying that immorality is automatically antisocial. That is a non sequitur; I do not follow the logic of that. 
 The term ''immorality'' is judgmental; it is the judgment of someone else about what is or is not defined as immoral. What most people today consider immoral is certainly not the same as what would have been considered immoral 50 or 100 years ago. That may change in the future, but I am concerned that the term is subject to changing nuances, rather than definitive. In other contexts, we know that the courts have problems in defining immorality. It is judgmental and subjective. Most important, it is not relevant to antisocial behaviour. 
 Obviously, some acts that most people construe as immoral may lead to antisocial behaviour. Kerb crawling is antisocial, but it is the nature of the act rather than the immorality of the act that makes it antisocial. Traditionally, the term immoral behaviour in terms of the use of premises, which the clause addresses, refers to the use of premises for prostitution. The running of a brothel is unlawful and there are many other aspects of prostitution for which one can be prosecuted, but prostitution per se is not unlawful. I am not passing judgment on whether it is right or wrong or acceptable or not, but by using the word immoral, we are saying that it is automatically antisocial. 
 I do not wish to be judgmental about how other people live their lives. We all know that some people live their lives in a very different way to most of us. There are plenty of people who have regular and frequent changes of sexual partner, day in, day out, but who are not prostitutes, inasmuch as no money 
 changes hands. Most people would argue that in some ways that is just as immoral as the actions of a prostitute, but where is the antisocial behaviour? Why are we saying that somebody who is a prostitute is acting antisocially because they have a succession of people knocking on their door at night whereas somebody who is doing it simply because they have what might be called loose morals is not acting antisocially? I do not understand where the automatic link is made between immorality and nuisance and annoyance. 
 That is why I challenge the Government to say why it is necessary to use the word ''immoral''. We all agree on the principle of nuisance and annoyance. I accept the definition that the Minister referred to earlier, and that it is long established in law. That should be sufficient. If behaviour is causing nuisance or annoyance, I do not care whether it is immoral in my judgment or somebody else's; it is nuisance or annoyance. I challenge the Minister to explain why it is necessary for this part of the Bill to introduce a moral judgment into the law. 
 Unlawfulness is clearly a separate issue. To link it with immorality as the clause does, is inexplicable. We all agree that ''unlawful'' is clear: if somebody uses his property in an unlawful way, the policies that the landlords must lay down and the ability to obtain an injunction should apply. However, to assume a link between immorality and unlawfulness that does not necessarily exist in today's world and to suggest that such behaviour automatically causes nuisance or annoyance is to retain an unnecessary semblance of Victorian legislation. I am all for enabling landlords to obtain injunctions against nuisance and annoyance, and I support what the Minister said in that respect. However, I do not see why a judgmental word like immorality is necessary, which is why I have taken a few moments to introduce the amendments.

Matthew Green: The Liberal Democrats have one amendment in the group—amendment No. 144, which would remove new section 153A(5). Our aim is to seek clarification from the Minister.
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Matthew Green: Our concern is about why the Government are introducing the provision. I can see that they may want to make it clear that the conduct does not necessarily have to take place in the premises or their immediate vicinity. However, the provision may be taken to mean that antisocial behaviour that occurs well away from the premises where somebody lives could be a reason to bring in a demoted tenancy. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention. Our amendment seeks clarification as to what they mean by
''It is immaterial where conduct . . . occurs''.
 I welcome the fact that the Conservatives have tabled amendments Nos. 194 and 196. In the light of 
 what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has said, the use of the word ''immoral'' seems inconsistent with an antisocial behaviour bill. If people's conduct is unlawful or they are causing a nuisance, that will be covered. Therefore, I am not sure what possible immoral purpose that caused a nuisance or annoyance would not be caught up by the earlier clause. 
 I hope that this is one area in which lawmakers are beginning to move from attempting to impose morality on people's behaviour to addressing the effects of that behaviour. I am grateful to the Conservatives and will be interested in the Minister's response to amendment No. 100, which deals with a similar issue to our amendment No. 144 in that it is concerned with the locality that is to be considered.

Tony McNulty: I fully take on board what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said about the distinct nature of the two sets of amendments. I shall take them in turn.
 Amendment No. 100 would provide absolute precision about the area within which injunctive protection can be given to visitors and others. At the moment, locality is determined by judicial discretion in each case. That is as it should be. It is up to the courts to decide exactly what is covered in given circumstances, and we do not intend that it should be defined as narrowly as pertaining to particular residences. That goes to the heart of the amendment to which the hon. Member for Ludlow referred. 
 An action, if deemed antisocial, needs to be dealt with wherever it takes place. The consequence is in part demotion of tenancy, but it is also the protection of the victim. We need to unpick what might be done with the tenancy as a punishment for or deterrent to antisocial behaviour from the action that caused the tenant to be in that position. 
 Imposing a fixed distance is likely to have some anomalous consequences. Perpetrators could lie in wait for someone to step over an imaginary line—in this case, 101 m from the residence—knowing that the person's protection ceased at that point. It would not be useful for legal argument to focus on whether the correct measurement to where the behaviour took place was 100 m or 101 m. The injunction is about proscribing the action of the individual. 
 Tenants and their visitors are one group that the clause aims to protect but there are others too: staff and anyone else lawfully in the locality of the landlord's housing stock. All those people are and should be protected against anyone. That may include tenants. Protecting people in that way is precisely the purpose of Government amendment No. 225. Often, it is not the landlord's employees who carry out some or all of the tasks associated with the landlord's housing management function but a third party. For example, some or all of the functions may be delegated to arms length management organisations, tenant management organisations, or let as a contract to another organisation. The clause as currently drafted does not widen the protection to ALMOs, TMOs and so on. The amendment rectifies that. 
 Under amendment No. 144, protection could be given only where the antisocial behaviour happened in the housing accommodation or its locality. That would have undesirable consequences. For example, our intention is that a housing officer who has refused a tenant a transfer could be protected if that tenant later sees him in a supermarket some miles away and attacks him. It comes back to the relationship between the action and the consequence. The effect of this amendment, doubtless unintentional, would be that if the tenant attacked the housing officer in the locality of the housing accommodation he would be protected but if the tenant laid in wait and attacked him as he left the locality, he would not be protected. 
 Where behaviour happens outside the locality, there must be some link to the housing management function. It is not the intention that the landlord should police the activities of tenants wherever they are, regardless of the circumstances. I have no difficulty in agreeing with the sentiment expressed by hon. Members but the amendments would not have the desired consequence, which is the protection under an injunction of people from antisocial behaviour. 
 Amendment No. 194 prompted a more interesting discussion. Its aim is to restrict the ability of landlords to seek injunctions against the use of premises to conduct that is unlawful, rather than immoral or unlawful. I suspect, and I ask hon. Members to bear with me, that the phrase ''immoral or unlawful'' was in section 152 of the 1996 Act. The clear policy in the initial drafting of the Bill was that any power or right accorded under previous Acts should be maintained and if anything built upon and consolidated, not diminished in any way. 
 I hesitate to find anything other than the activity around prostitution as the reason why ''immoral'' should remain. I am tempted by the argument advanced by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, but I should like to have a further look to see whether there are other reasons—perhaps relating to the crack house elements that have been mentioned—why ''immoral'' should be included as well as ''unlawful''. 
 I take the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument and assure the Committee that I will return with a firm answer one way or the other. Currently, I am not persuaded by my own briefing that ''immoral'' should be included but I do not profess to be the master of all I survey even with regard to clauses 12 to 17. The hon. Gentleman made a fair point. If he agrees not to press his amendment, I undertake to examine it further and to remove the offending ''immoral'' phrase if there is no substantive reason for including it other than, rightly, not seeking to lose any elements of substance from previous legislation. There may be some reason of which I am not aware but I was more persuaded than otherwise by the hon. Gentleman and will examine the matter. 
 I think that I have covered most of the issues raised, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

James Paice: Taking the last matter first, I am grateful for the Minister's comments about the amendments
 regarding immorality. When he started by saying that he suspected the reason for its inclusion was ''x'', I knew that we were on fairly strong ground.

Tony McNulty: Maybe.

James Paice: Maybe. I am also pleased that my explanation of the reasons behind the amendment has caused the Minister to think about the issue. I am grateful to him for that. I take note of the fact that the phrase is already contained in the 1996 Act. Bearing it in mind that that Act was passed by the Government of which I was a member, far be it from me to say that it is wrong. However, the world moves on, the Bill is purely about antisocial behaviour, and my view remains that we should not be making judgmental decisions about immorality. If something is causing nuisance and annoyance, it should be covered by the Bill and be the cause of an injunction but if it is not causing nuisance or annoyance, I do not see why the landlord should be able to obtain an injunction under the antisocial behaviour legislation.
 On the inclusion of 100 m in the lead amendment, I realised that whatever figure was included would cause problems, but I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of the need for judicial freedom about locality. I confess that at one stage he slightly lost me on his explanation.

Tony McNulty: Oh, good.

James Paice: The Minister says, ''Oh, good'', but I suspect that he also lost himself, as he certainly did elsewhere in his comments, including in the introduction to his own amendment. I accept the need for judicial freedom, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 225, in 
clause 13, page 10, line 21, leave out from 'employed' to 'housing' in line 22 and insert 
 '(whether or not by the relevant landlord) in connection with the exercise of the relevant landlord's'.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 216, in
clause 13, page 11, leave out lines 8 and 9.
 The amendment, which has the support of Shelter, would clarify the use of injunctions, and in particular the fact that an injunction could exclude a person from their normal place of residence. It is not concerned with a person losing their tenancy. The amendment would ensure that people could only be excluded from their normal place of residence if they had used, or threatened to use, violence, or where there was a significant risk of harm, and even that sanction should only be available in serious cases of antisocial behaviour. The amendment would ensure that people could not be excluded from their homes for low-level antisocial behaviour. I say that with some caution, as I realise that there are significant problems. However, excluding someone— 
Several hon. Members rose—

Matthew Green: Bear with me for one moment. I am concerned about the sanction of excluding someone from their home—that is not the same as
 them losing their tenancy—for a period of three to six months. I am sure that it would not be used excessively, but if used disproportionately it would have an effect on the Government's homelessness strategy.

Siobhain McDonagh: Can the hon. Gentleman define what he considers to be low-level antisocial behaviour?

Matthew Green: ''Low-level'' may not be an appropriate term. There is clearly a difference between the level of intimidation caused by behaviour that is potentially threatening or violent and antisocial behaviour that relates to noise in the person's house.
 An injunction that bars someone from his own home is a pretty severe sanction. It is not the same as losing a tenancy. There is a difference. The injunction would bar people from their own homes, and the amendment seeks to ensure that the power would apply only in certain cases. The Minister may assure us that it can be dealt with by guidance, and that the power will be used only in extreme circumstances. That may be one way around what appears to be too powerful a provision. The effect of making people homeless for a period could be disruptive for a huge number of people, possibly leading to them sleeping on the streets.

James Clappison: Does it ever occur to the hon. Gentleman that the person who is responsible for that behaviour has the choice of whether or not to continue with it but that those on the receiving end have no such choice?

Matthew Green: Yes, it does occur to me. However, we are talking about not a person losing his tenancy but an injunction banning him from his home. Under the Bill, a tenancy may be demoted and then removed. We are talking about a separate power, and I wish to hear the Minister justify it. We are not saying that people should never lose their homes because of their highly antisocial behaviour. We are saying that it is appropriate to go through the proper steps to get to the end, rather than use an injunction to bar someone from his home, which would be strange.

Tony McNulty: Amendment No. 216 seems—not unusually, given that it was probably penned by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—to have no practical effect. A power to exclude a perpetrator of antisocial behaviour is set out in proposed new section 153C(2), which states:
''The court may include in the injunction a provision prohibiting the person in respect of whom it is granted from entering or being in . . . any premises specified in the injunction''.
 It does not declare otherwise. It clearly includes the person's home. Proposed new section 153D(2)(b) merely makes it explicit that the injunction can include the perpetrator's home. Even if the purpose of the amendment were as the hon. Member for Ludlow suggested, it would not achieve what he seeks. 
 It is possible under sections 152 and 153 of the Housing Act 1996 to exclude a person from his normal place of residence by means of an injunction. That is a powerful tool, and we do not wish to weaken it. Deliberately or otherwise, the amendment would dilute the strong message that we wish to give; it would shift policy. The power to exclude someone from their own home is very strong, and rightly so. There are conditions attached to its use. It can be used only where there is the use or threat of violence or a significant risk of harm. It is at the court's discretion and will be granted only where the court is satisfied that it is necessary given all the facts of the case. It is in line with antisocial behaviour orders, by which perpetrators can be excluded from their own homes. 
 I strongly urge the Committee to resist the amendment, which would give the message that we are not serious about getting to the heart of antisocial behaviour. The Committee cannot want to give such a message. The amendment would dilute the import and thrust of the Bill and would not achieve what it seeks to achieve, which is not unusual. It should be resisted.

Laura Moffatt: The amendment is interesting but clause 13 is important, particularly in dealing with those who choose to behave badly and are not tenants of registered social landlords or local authorities. Can the power to extend the use of injunctions be used in the case of private homes to deal with those who have exercised the right to buy and are causing difficulties for local people?

Tony McNulty: I have been assured that the powers can be extended. The clause sends the important message that the Bill is a serious attempt to get to the heart of the problem, but it is tempered by the realisation that the power is very strong and should be used only in exceptional circumstances.

Matthew Green: On excluding a person from their normal place of residence, will the Minister clarify whether the provision applies only to new section 153C(1) and not to new section 153A? New section 153D(1) states:
''This section applies for the purposes of sections 153A to 153C.''
 Perhaps I am misreading the Bill and perhaps that is where the confusion has come from, but the Minister is saying that the power applies only to new section 153C. If he were to clarify that, we could move on rapidly.

Tony McNulty: Perhaps unusually—it is not for me to denigrate legal language—new section 153C(1) is very explicit:
''This section applies if the court grants an injunction under subsection (2) of section 153A or 153B and it thinks that either of the following paragraphs applies—
(a) the conduct consists of or includes the use or threatened use of violence;
(b) there is a significant risk of harm to a person mentioned in section 153A(4).''

Matthew Green: Now that the Minister has explained that part of the clause, if he wants to stop talking about the amendment, I will quickly withdraw it.

Tony McNulty: I want to make a final clarification to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt). The power must be linked to the landlord's management function to protect the tenant or leaseholder. In those circumstances, the answer to her question is yes. I hope and pray—I think that I have received an indication—that the hon. Member for Ludlow will withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Green: Because the Minister has made it clear that the power would apply only if new section 153C(1) and new sections 153A and 153B apply, my concern has been allayed. I apologise to the Committee for taking up its time by misreading the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 145, in
clause 13, page 11, line 31, leave out 'and appurtenances'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 102, in 
clause 13, page 11, line 40, leave out 'three' and insert 'one'.

Matthew Green: This brief amendment is designed to question the words ''and appurtenances''.

Vernon Coaker: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. May we clarify how to pronounce that word? I am not sure how to do so.

Bill O'Brien: I call Mr. Green.

Matthew Green: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.
 A dictionary definition states that an appurtenance is 
''a belonging; an appendage; an accessory.''
 If that is correct, why does the word add anything to the Bill? It seems to apply naturally with the other aspects of the provision, so we are slightly baffled as to why the word is in the Bill, even if I cannot pronounce it properly.

James Paice: I can assure you, Mr. O'Brien, that I do not wish to enter into the animal, vegetable or mineral debate on the meaning of the word ''appurtenance''. I simply want to say a few words about amendment No. 102, which you have graciously linked to amendment No. 145 for reasons that I am sure you will keep to yourself.
 The issue is the period of the remainder of the lease under which a landlord is considered a landlord and can seek an injunction. The Bill refers to three years, and we seek to reduce that to one year. I am not particularly hung up on one year, but three years seems a long period. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes has left the Committee but this is the point to which I was referring when she made an intervention about leasehold property—[Interruption.] I am sorry. She is here. She has moved into the Parliamentary Private Secretary position, and I congratulate her on her promotion. I apologise; my sight is obviously worse than I thought. 
 For a landlord to have to have three years still to run on the lease before he can seek an injunction for antisocial behaviour seems an extraordinary 
 restriction. I cannot see why it is necessary. As long as he has a leasehold and sufficient leasehold to cover the period of the sub-lease or the lease to the tenant who is the subject of the injunction, that should be sufficient. That is why we tabled the amendment. A considerable amount of nuisance and annoyance can be caused in three years. To eliminate from the power all properties for which there is less than three years left on the landlord's lease seems unnecessary and contrary to the spirit of what the Minister said earlier about putting as few restrictions in the way of the legislation as possible. I should be interested in his explanation.

Tony McNulty: The purpose of adding the words ''and appurtenances'' to the clause and resisting the amendment that would delete them is that we want there to be no doubt under law about what is meant by the term ''housing accommodation''. Again, we want the Bill to be enacted as quickly as possible. We do not want there to be any legal wrangling or arm wrestling over what a particular term means, so it is appropriate to include the word ''appurtenances''.
 Appurtenances are things that belong or pertain to the housing accommodation. The term includes anything that will pass on a conveyance or letting of a lease. It could include garages, sheds, separate storage areas or gardens. Given that we want the term ''housing accommodation'' to have as broad a scope as possible, it is appropriate that the words ''and appurtenances'' stay in the legislation. 
 The word is used in numerous statutes, such as the Housing Act 1988, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, the Local Government and Finance Acts of 1988 and 1992 and the Noise Act 1996. It is possible that, without the word ''appurtenances'', the courts will include in the definition of housing accommodation what I have described, but we do not want there to be any question about the intention, which is why the definition is so full. It would not be terribly useful in terms of the import and thrust of the Bill to remove the phrase ''and appurtenances''. 
 On amendment No. 102, proposed new section 153D(10)(b) has been drafted to mirror provisions in other housing legislation, specifically the Housing Act 1985. We think that three years is the correct term. However, the amendment has highlighted another issue concerning the clause. We shall consider whether any changes to the clause are necessary on Report. The clause states that an owner of a property is either a freeholder or anyone who has more than three years left to run on a lease. In effect, someone who has a 50-year lease with less than three years left to run on the term would not be classified as an owner. 
 We are considering whether it is necessary to make an amendment that states that the owner is a freeholder or anyone who has a lease in which the original term was for three years or more. That involves a small technicality. With the best will in the world, I would need to read that a few more times to understand it fully. We will take it away to reconsider whether we need that technical adjustment to reflect what I have just read out and do not yet entirely understand. 
 I shall certainly undertake to take on board the point made about a year. I suspect that, even if we chose to tighten things up or to redraft because of that technical anomaly, we would still settle on three years, but I shall happily look again at the notion of one year instead of three.

Shona McIsaac: If we are considering the remaining period of a lease, I point out to my hon. Friend that the majority of the people who fall into the relevant category, certainly in leasehold houses in my constituency, tend to be pensioners, often quite elderly ones. I do not think that that people in that category are likely to be guilty of much antisocial behaviour, but the change could make them vulnerable to unscrupulous freeholders.

Tony McNulty: We will look at it. I shall certainly take account of my hon. Friend's points.
 I strongly resist losing my appurtenances and I will ask the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw the amendment, but first I give way to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire.

James Paice: I strongly appreciate what the Minister has said about my arguments on the amendment. With respect to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes, my intention is certainly not to try to get her elderly tenants kicked out of their properties. As she rightly says, they are not likely to be the source of nuisance or annoyance—or at least most of them are not. However, the issue is whether the landlord is considered to be an owner if he has fewer than three years left on the lease. The Minister said that the measure might apply if his original lease was for three years or more. I entirely understand and support that, which is an entirely different concept from having three years left to run. I am grateful that the Minister has undertaken to take that point away, but I stress that if he wants to stick with three years, that should be connected to the original lease rather than with the period left to run. To debar for a three-year period is to allow a lot of antisocial behaviour.

Tony McNulty: As I have said, I shall certainly take all those points on board when we consider whether we need to redraft the clause for technical reasons. We will consider inserting one year rather than three years, and report back at the appropriate time.

Matthew Green: After listening to the Minister, I think that we will leave his appurtenances well alone. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Security of tenure: anti-social behaviour

Tony McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 226, in
clause 14, page 13, line 6, at end insert— 
 '(d) it is also a term of the demoted tenancy that any rent paid in advance or overpaid at the termination of the secure tenancy is credited to the tenant's liability to pay rent under the demoted tenancy.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 227 to 229.

Tony McNulty: The purpose of amendments Nos. 226 and 228 is to ensure that any rent that a secure or assured tenant has paid in advance before demotion is credited to their new rent account under the demoted or demoted assured shorthold tenancy. There is already a provision in the Bill to ensure that any rent arrears are debited from the new rent account. It is only right and proper that any rent paid in advance is treated appropriately.
 The purpose of amendments Nos. 227 and 229 is to clarify to both landlord and demoted tenants the terms of the demoted or demoted assured shorthold tenancy. Amendment No. 227 relates to secure tenancies and amendment No. 229 to assured tenancies. 
 New section 82A(4A)(a) to (d) to the Housing Act 1985 ensures that the names on the tenancy agreement, the period of the tenancy, the rent payable and the date when the rent is payable are the same for the demoted tenancy as for the secure tenancy. New section 6A(4A)(a) to (d) to the Housing Act 1988 ensures that these things are the same for a demoted assured shorthold tenancy as for the assured tenancy that it replaces. 
 Most tenancies run from one period to the next and last indefinitely. Some social landlords let properties for a fixed period only, after which the tenancy ends. New sections 82A(4B) and 9A(4B)to the 1985 Act ensure that fixed term tenancies become weekly periodic tenancies on demotion. That allows landlords to end such tenancies as easily as any other demoted tenancy. 
 Some social landlords have terms set out in their secure or assured tenancies that they will also want to apply to their demoted or demoted assured shorthold tenancies. For example, a local authority may make it a term of its tenancy agreement that tenants should not cause nuisance or annoyance to any council staff. New sections 82A(4C) and 6A(4C) ensure that if a landlord wants to apply some express terms from the secure or assured tenancy into the demoted or demoted assured shorthold tenancy, he can do so by serving a statement of terms on the tenant. 
 These are important issues that, in the overall context of the clauses on housing, are relatively technical. I hope that the Committee accepts the amendments. 
 Amendment agreed to.

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 103, in
clause 14, page 13, line 8, leave out 'or visiting'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 217, in 
clause 14, page 13, line 12, at end insert— 
 '( ) that where an injunction under section 153A or 153B has already been granted, its terms have been breached or, where no such 
injunction has been obtained, it was not an appropriate or available remedy to the landlord, and'.
 Amendment No. 218, in 
clause 14, page 13, line 13, at end insert— 
 '(4A) A demotion order may contain provisions for the landlord to provide support and rehabilitation services to the tenant or a person residing in or visiting the dwellinghouse who has engaged or has threatened to engage in conduct to which section 153A or 153B of the Housing Act 1996 (antisocial behaviour or use of premises for immoral or unlawful purposes) applies.'.
 Amendment No. 104, in 
clause 14, page 13, line 38, leave out 'or visiting'.
 Amendment No. 219, in 
clause 14, page 13, line 42, at end insert— 
 '( ) that where an injunction under section 153A or 153B has already been granted, its terms have been breached or, where no such injunction has been obtained, it was not an appropriate or available remedy to the landlord, and'.
 Amendment No. 220, in 
clause 14, page 13, line 43, at end insert— 
 '(4A) A demotion order may contain provisions for the landlord to provide support and rehabilitation services to the tenant or a person residing in or visiting the dwellinghouse who has engaged or has threatened to engage in conduct to which section 153A or 153B of the Housing Act 1996 (antisocial behaviour or use of premises for immoral or unlawful purposes) applies.'.
 Amendment No. 222, in 
schedule 1, page 43, line 2, leave out 'of the dwellinghouse' and insert 'under section 143E'. 
 Amendment No. 223, in 
 schedule 1, page 43, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert— 
 '(2) The court must make an order for possession under this section if it is satisfied— 
 (a) that the tenant or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling house has engaged or threatened to engage in conduct to which section 153A or 153B of the Housing Act 1996 (antisocial behaviour or use of premises for immoral or unlawful purposes) applies, and 
 (b) the procedure under sections 143E and 143F has been followed.'.
 Amendment No. 233, in 
schedule 1, page 43, line 40, at end insert 
 'and it is not reasonable to make the order.'.
 Amendment No. 238, in 
schedule 1, page 43, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert— 
 '(2) The court shall not make an order for possession unless— 
 (a) the procedures under sections 143E and 143F have been followed; and 
 (b) the court considers it reasonable to make the order.'.
 Amendment No. 237, in 
schedule 1, page 44, line 3, after 'unless', insert— 
 '(a) the grounds of possession are related to antisocial behaviour since the demotion order; 
 (b) the landlord has made attempts to resolve the problem of antisocial behaviour with the tenant and any family by liasing with other agencies if necessary; and 
 (c) .'.
 Amendment No. 234, in 
schedule 1, page 44, line 3, after 'unless', insert— 
 '(a) the grounds for possession are related to antisocial behaviour; 
 (b) the landlord has made attempts to resolve the problem of antisocial behaviour with the tenant and any family by liaising with other agencies if necessary; and'.
 Amendment No. 224, in 
schedule 1, page 49, line 20, at end insert— 
 '( ) In section 84 (grounds and orders for possession) after subsection (4) there is inserted the following— 
 ''(5) For the purposes of this section— 
 (a) secure tenancies include demoted tenancies with the meaning of section 143A of the Housing Act 1996; 
 (b) secure tenants include demoted tenants within the meaning of that section.''.'.
 Amendment No. 221, in 
clause 15, page 14, line 27, at end insert— 
 '( ) In the Housing Act 1988 (c.50) at the end of section 21 there is inserted the following subsection— 
 (8) No order for possession under subsection (1) or (4) may be made in relation to a dwellinghouse let on a tenancy to which section 20B above applies unless the court is satisfied that the tenant or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling house has engaged or threatened to engage in conduct to which section 153A or 153B of the Housing Act 1996 (antisocial behaviour or use of premises for immoral or unlawful purposes) applies.'.

James Paice: Amendments Nos. 103, 104 and 234 stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath. Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 are straightforward. We simply wish to ask the Minister what ''visiting'' means. The clause says that the
''court must not make a demotion order unless it is satisfied—
(a) that the tenant or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling-house''
 engaged in the conduct. These are probing amendments to establish whether visiting means making a pre-arranged visit, visiting at the invitation of the tenant or perhaps visiting speculatively, such as cold-calling. We need a definition. 
 The most important amendment in the group is amendment No. 234, which has been tabled as a result of discussions with the Law Society and with Shelter, which the hon. Member for Ludlow mentioned earlier. The concern is that, having secured a demotion order, the landlord may obtain possession of the property through the fast-track system that a demotion order allows for something that has nothing to do with antisocial behaviour. 
 The amendment makes the reasonable proposal that if somebody is committing antisocial behaviour under the terms of the clause and the landlord obtains a demotion order for that reason and the tenant continues to commit that ''offence'' of antisocial behaviour, it is perfectly reasonable for the landlord to use the fast-track system of possession that is allowed by the demotion order; if, however, the tenant then does something entirely different, it seems unjust that the fast-track system should necessarily apply. I hope that the Minister is able to explain why the provision is as broad as it is. It seems that once the tenancy is changed to a demoted tenancy, the landlord does not have to offer much of a reason to gain possession. That is wholly wrong. Amendment No. 234 would ensure that the reason for possession is related to antisocial behaviour. 
 According to the clause, the court can consider only the mechanics of how the landlord sought the possession order rather than the reasons for it. The Law Society strongly supports the approach behind the amendment. Demotion will make it easier to evict tenants and will encourage eviction with little or no proper investigation. The key point is that once a demotion order is obtained, the court will have to evict the tenant at a later hearing as long as the landlord has issued a notice in the correct form and provided a review of the decision to issue the notice if the tenant requests such a review. In other words, the landlord simply has to follow a mechanical process rather than offer a reason for taking possession. The Law Society says that that is a disproportionate measure that could particularly affect vulnerable people, such as those with mental health problems. 
 The question is whether the power or ability to obtain possession should be restricted to antisocial behaviour or whether, as it appears in the Bill, it can be for any reason once a demotion order has been obtained. I moved amendment No. 103, which is the lead amendment, but I am particularly concerned about amendment No. 234.

Matthew Green: The Liberal Democrats have numerous amendments under clause 14. Members of the Committee will be delighted to hear that they make up our last big block of the day, and I hope that they will bear with me as I deal with them.
 Amendments Nos. 217 and 219 go together. They would ensure that the powers in the Bill to demote tenancies are used only as a last resort and that demotion orders are granted only if injunctions have failed or are not appropriate, thus promoting a clearer, more proportionate response. To ensure a consistent approach in the Bill, amendment No. 217 applies to secure tenancies and amendment No. 219 to assured tenancies. 
 Likewise, amendments Nos. 218 and 220 go together. They would give the court discretion to include the provision of support and rehabilitation as part of the conditions of a demotion order. I stress the point that the court would have discretion to do so—it does not have to. The court may decide that it would be appropriate to instruct that there should be some support and rehabilitation to enable tenants to address their behaviour and improve their chances of sustaining their tenancy. Amendment No. 218 applies to secure tenancies and amendment No. 220 to assured tenancies. 
 The thinking behind the amendments is very much a result of the success of two schemes: the Dundee families project and the Shelter inclusion project, both of which have been very successful in showing how support and rehabilitation can be successful in addressing behaviour. It is perhaps worth spending a short time considering the Dundee families project. 
 In stark contrast to the lack of evidence that evicting people changes their behaviour, the indications so far are that resettlement schemes work. The Dundee families project is a residential 
 scheme that works intensively with families with behavioural problems. It has helped 80 families, none of whom have been evicted since leaving the scheme, despite the fact that many of them had been evicted several times before and had not previously managed to change their behaviour. The evaluation of the project also shows that it has widespread backing in the local area and represents extremely good value for money. As a result of that, similar new schemes are being set up. We seek to give the courts discretion in demoting tenancy to decide that such a scheme, where appropriate, might be a suitable way of dealing with the matter. That would be entirely at the discretion of the court. 
 Amendments Nos. 221, 222, 223 and 224 aim to ensure that fast-track eviction procedures available for demoted tenancies could not be used for any other reason other than for further antisocial behaviour. There are similarities between our amendments and those of the Conservatives. Amendment No. 221 relates to registered social landlord tenants who previously had assured tenancies. Amendments Nos. 222, 223 and 224 relate to local authority tenants who previously had secured tenancies. 
 We must be aware that demoted tenancies are similar to introductory tenancies, which are used by local authorities, and to starter tenancies, used by registered social landlords. There is little evidence to support the effectiveness of introductory tenancies in tackling antisocial behaviour. Research conducted by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in 2001 found that most possession orders against introductory tenants were prompted by rent arrears, rather than antisocial behaviour. Rent arrears were the main grounds for possession in nearly 90 per cent. of actions against introductory tenants. 
 Shelter has collated some information on that. One authority in south-west England served notice in more than 300 cases, 96.5 per cent. of which were for rent arrears. In one case, the tenant—a single parent in low-paid work—faced mandatory possession action because of less than £200 of rent arrears. We are concerned that the eviction process could be fast-tracked because someone with a demoted tenancy owes £100 in rent. A tenant might already be subject to a demoted tenancy when—crash, bang, wallop—even though they are no longer acting in an antisocial way, they are evicted. 
 The final group of amendments in the name of my party are amendments Nos. 237 and 238. Amendment No. 237 is almost identical to the Conservatives' amendment No. 234, with one proviso. In our amendment, the antisocial behaviour must occur after the demoted tenancy order was issued. We are trying to ensure that tenants are evicted from their property as a result only of further antisocial behaviour, occurring after the tenancy has been demoted. I assume that that is the Government's intention. It is simply a clarification, and amendment No. 234 is largely the same. I hope that the Government can offer some reassurances in those areas.

Tony McNulty: Although I understand much of what has been said by both hon. Gentlemen, we have to
 resist the amendments because the outcome of their acceptance would be to water down the effect of a demoted tenancy. That goes back to the heart of today's sitting, when we discussed actions having consequences and understanding those consequences.
 The amendments would make it more difficult and more bureaucratic to obtain a demotion order in the first place. They would increase the level of security of a demoted tenancy, but demotion is not a soft option. As well as a warning and an incentive to behave, it is a real sanction. The tenant, through his or her actions, has lost security and that may have serious consequences. Tenants should understand that when they are considering how to behave in the first place. They should be made fully aware that there are consequences to their actions. 
 All Committee members will know that one of the most galling aspects of antisocial behaviour is the way in which the perpetrators often believe that they can get away with whatever they want to do. The amendments should be strongly resisted not only in terms of law, but in terms of message.

Annette Brooke: I wanted to explore what the Minister said about the amendments watering down the provision. Does introducing support measures at the same time as introducing a strong measure water that measure down? I think that it makes it stronger.

Tony McNulty: It waters down the notion of demoted tenancies as a sanction. As I said, in terms of the overall policies, procedure and guiding strategies, of course there must be a preventive dimension as well as a retributive dimension. Demoted tenancies in the first instance are intended to be a sanction; the amendments move away from the relative strength of that sanction, which is why we shall resist them.
 Amendments Nos. 103, 104, 217 and 219 would restrict the circumstances in which a demotion order can be made. Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 would prevent demotion orders being granted if the antisocial behaviour was caused by a visitor. Clearly, that would be out of line with possession actions on the grounds of anti-social behaviour. Social landlords can and do obtain outright possession when antisocial behaviour is caused by visitors. Tenants have a clear responsibility for the behaviour of their visitors. 
 I half took the point to which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred, but whether the visit is pre-arranged and by appointment or someone simply comes in off the street, the tenant is responsible the actions of the visitor. I ask the Committee not to tempt me down this line because I shall struggle, but other parts of the law pertain to uninvited visitors who, by definition, are not visitors. ''Visitor'' means what it says and the meaning is unusually clear in the law. Possession orders can already be obtained and there is no justification for following a different line here. 
 Amendments Nos. 217 and 219 would prevent the courts from granting a demotion order if an injunction was in place and had not been breached or if the landlord had failed to apply for an injunction in appropriate circumstances. That would limit the 
 landlord's discretion to choose between two effective remedies for antisocial behaviour and prevent the landlord from using a mix-and-match approach. 
 Demotion orders and injunctions are intended to be free-standing options, which the social landlord will be able to use separately or together, depending on what is most appropriate in the circumstances. It may often be a good idea for landlords to seek injunctions before taking other action, but in cases of persistent antisocial behaviour a demotion order may be more appropriate than an injunction. It would not be helpful for landlords or those suffering from antisocial behaviour if the power to obtain demotion orders were restricted in that way. 
 Amendments Nos. 218 and 220 link too closely the provision of support with the demotion order. As I said, it is good practice for landlords to offer appropriate support to those affected by antisocial behaviour as well as to those who perpetrate it. As well as giving the tenant and landlord the opportunity for rehabilitation work, the demotion order is an attractive proposition for landlords because it ensures swift action if the behaviour is not addressed. Tying any support to the order may, however, lead to unforeseen complexities. For example, if the landlord did not have a complete support package in place at the time of seeking an order, would the courts refuse to grant that order? If the landlord had not provided support in the method stated in the demotion order, could that be a reason for the tenant to challenge any subsequent eviction action? 
 Amendment No. 222 is purely a drafting matter. It is not required, as the clause already has the effect that the amendment would achieve. The notice of proceeding for possession referred to in new section 143B(3) is a notice under new section 143E to the Housing Act 1996. 
 Amendments Nos. 223 and 224 would change the way in which a demoted tenancy is ended by requiring the courts to consider whether it is reasonable to end the tenancy and link the possession specifically to antisocial behaviour. Amendments Nos. 221, 223 and 237 would also change the basis on which the court ends a demoted tenancy. 
 All the amendments undermine the system of demotion. Eviction from a demoted tenancy is designed to be swifter and easier than from secure tenancies. It is modelled, as has been said, on the procedure for local authority introductory tenancies. It has recently been approved by the courts as compliant with the European convention on human rights. Our aim is to increase landlords' control in the process, while still being fair to tenants. It is a matter of balance and we believe that we have the balance right.

James Paice: I want to press the Minister on this point. He seems to be saying that he wants a demoted tenancy to allow a faster course of possession, but he seems to ignore the fact that schedule 1, which we are seeking to amend, says on page 43:
''The court must make an order for possession unless it thinks that the procedure under sections 143E and 143F has not been followed.''
 In other words, the court cannot have cognisance of any reasons. Therefore, as long as the landlord has followed the right procedure, he does not have to give a reason for evicting the tenant. I should have thought that Government Members, who understandably are sometimes vexed about unscrupulous landlords, would be concerned about that. Once a landlord has a demotion order, there is nothing to prevent him from seeking to evict the tenant without having to display in court any further cause other than that he has followed the right procedures.

Tony McNulty: As I have said, demotions are deliberately intended to reduce the security of tenure of antisocial tenants. The court case approving the introductory tenancy is McLellan, and the procedure includes a right to a review. However, the amendments give back to tenants accused of antisocial behaviour their security and wipe out all the benefits of a demotion scheme.

James Paice: Rubbish.

Tony McNulty: They would effectively require a double possession hearing. Landlords will simply go straight from the injunction stage or whatever stage is used all the way through to possession, without trying to use the alternative model of demotion. The hon. Gentleman said ''Rubbish,'' but the amendment would fundamentally undermine the whole purpose of the demotion process.

Matthew Green: Where a demoted tenancy has been issued for antisocial behaviour and the person has ceased their antisocial behaviour but gets behind in their rent, does the Minister envisage that being considered a suitable reason for closing down a demoted tenancy?

Tony McNulty: As I have said, the purpose of demoted tenancies is to obviate the need to go directly to the possession route for antisocial behaviour. It puts another element in the process and says loudly and clearly to tenants, ''There are sanctions against and consequences to your behaviour''.
 I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said some time back that there is substantial evidence to suggest that to go straight from a position where a relationship has broken down to possession and eviction does not necessarily sort out the problems of the family concerned or resolve the problems in that locality, but simply moves them to another area. That is what fundamentally underpins the process of demoted tenancies, but, to be effective, they must have teeth. It makes no sense for a landlord to agree to go the demoted tenancy route, with all that it implies, when he or she could have gone directly for a possession order if they then simply wait for the wrong leaves on the footpath leading up to the house or the equivalent, to say, ''Well, my lad, I am going straight for a possession order.'' The consequential dimensions make no sense. 
 Without the amendments, the whole process of demoted tenancies has real teeth. There is a real message about sanctions and consequences of behaviour that will be fundamentally undermined, whether intentionally or otherwise, by the thrust and import of the amendments.

Matthew Green: Will it be easier for a landlord to secure a demoted tenancy than an eviction in the first instance? If it is easier to secure a demoted tenancy, will unscrupulous landlords not use that as a quick and easy means of getting someone out of a house if they cannot secure an eviction order?

Tony McNulty: The question is why would they? If they can go down the eviction and possession route, why would they bother trying any other route? Demotion orders follow from and are consequential to only serious antisocial behaviour. They do not simply drop out of the sky as part of the housing management function. They are part of a process. We are talking about cases in which the tenant's antisocial behaviour is such that their security of tenure is taken away.
 The sanctions are serious. Landlords are not going to come up with a whole range of spurious or vexatious notions because they have decided that it is far better to have half their tenants under demotion orders so that it is quicker to get rid of them if they fancy it. We are not talking about a spurious process that is engaged in lightly by local housing authorities, HATs or RSLs. I repeat that there are serious regulatory and statutory frameworks outwith the Bill within which the functions of housing management have to operate. We need to see things in that wider context. If demotion orders are to work and be effective— 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Tony McNulty: We had reached the stage at which we had exhausted our deliberations on the set of amendments led by amendment No. 103. For the reasons that I outlined at length before the Division, I urge the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire to withdraw the amendment.

James Paice: I confess that, for the first time this afternoon, I am disappointed in the Minister. He has been very reasonable until now, but he has not taken on board the import of what we have been saying.
 First, I shall deal with amendments Nos. 103 and 104, which deal with visitors. The Minister said rather dismissively that the matter was established in law, then seemed to imply that the definition of a visitor would not include somebody who just turned up. That was my point. I did not necessarily want to remove ''visiting'', but I did want to know what it meant. I shall return to the matter in my concluding comment. 
 I turn to amendment No. 234, which, as the hon. Member for Ludlow observed, is similar to his amendment No. 237. We are not trying to draw the 
 teeth of a demotion order, which the Minister seemed to imply, nor are we suggesting that somebody who has persistently been either guilty in person or guilty of permitting antisocial behaviour linked to his tenancy should not be the subject of a demotion order. That provision seems perfectly reasonable and I support that part of the Bill. 
 My sole concern is that, as far as I can see, there is nothing to prevent the landlord who has obtained the demotion order from seeking to gain possession entirely on a whim a week or a month into the period of the demotion order. At that stage, it is accepted that the tenant is guilty of antisocial behaviour, otherwise the court would not have granted the demotion order. The Minister referred to the wrong sort of leaves on the path or words to that effect. With no desire to ridicule, my reading of schedule 1 is that the landlord does not need to give a reason. It is clear from the extract that I read from new section 143D(2) to the Housing Act 1996 that the court cannot have any cognisance of his reason for seeking possession; it simply has to ensure that he has gone through the procedure. The Minister said that the tenant has a right to ask for review. That is true, but it is a review by the landlord. New section 143F(2) simply says: 
''If a request is made in accordance with subsection (1) the landlord must review the decision.''

Matthew Green: I can foresee one example in which a demoted tenancy is brought because of the antisocial behaviour of a 17-year-old son whose outrageous behaviour creates problems. The son could leave home, leaving the parents with a demoted tenancy and a month in rent arrears, and the landlord could then just tell them to leave. There would be no natural justice in that whatsoever.

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman gives a good example, but I am not sure that the tenant would even need to be in arrears. Nothing in the clause requires a substantive reason for seeking possession, and the court cannot have cognisance of it. That is my concern.

Siobhain McDonagh: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that is the position under assured shorthold tenancies? Most commercial and private landlords sign their tenants up as assured shorthold tenancies, and at the expiry of the tenancy they can get possession for almost any reason. Why would an unscrupulous landlord choose to go down the difficult route of signing an assured tenancy, then going through the difficult procedure of securing a demoted tenancy to achieve the eviction that he could have secured if he had first given his tenant a six-month assured shorthold tenancy?

James Paice: There is a clear distinction. Both the tenant and landlord know that an assured shorthold tenancy is for a fixed duration. That form of tenancy was introduced to stimulate the private rented sector by ensuring that both parties know the precise duration of the tenancy and that there is no certainty of continuation beyond its finish. However, we are talking about a tenant who has a full assured tenancy under an RSL, HAT or local authority finding that the landlord, having got the demoted tenancy, can decide
 to continue with possession proceedings without any just cause. That is a different situation.
 I shall not press amendment No. 103. However, in the light of the Minister's misunderstanding—to be charitable—of our purpose, I signal my intention to divide the Committee on amendment No. 234 at the appropriate time. Having made that point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 227, in 
clause 14, page 13, line 13, at end insert— 
 '(4A) Each of the following has effect in respect of a demoted tenancy at the time it is created by virtue of an order under this section as it has effect in relation to the secure tenancy at the time it is terminated by virtue of the order— 
 (a) the parties to the tenancy; 
 (b) the period of the tenancy; 
 (c) the amount of the rent; 
 (d) the dates on which the rent is payable. 
 (4B) Subsection (4A)(b) does not apply if the secure tenancy was for a fixed term and in such a case the demoted tenancy is a weekly periodic tenancy. 
 (4C) If the landlord of the demoted tenancy serves on the tenant a statement of any other express terms of the secure tenancy which are to apply to the demoted tenancy such terms are also terms of the demoted tenancy.'
 No. 228, in 
clause 14, page 13, line 36, at end insert— 
 '(d) it is also a term of the demoted tenancy that any rent paid in advance or overpaid at the termination of the assured tenancy is credited to the tenant's liability to pay rent under the demoted tenancy.
 No. 229, in 
clause 14, page 13, line 43, at end insert— 
 '(4A) Each of the following has effect in respect of a demoted tenancy at the time it is created by virtue of an order under this section as it has effect in relation to the assured tenancy at the time it is terminated by virtue of the order— 
 (a) the parties to the tenancy; 
 (b) the period of the tenancy; 
 (c) the amount of the rent; 
 (d) the dates on which the rent is payable. 
 (4B) Subsection (4A)(b) does not apply if the assured tenancy was for a fixed term and in such a case the demoted tenancy is a weekly periodic tenancy. 
 (4C) If the landlord of the demoted tenancy serves on the tenant a statement of any other express terms of the assured tenancy which are to apply to the demoted tenancy such terms are also terms of the demoted tenancy.' 
 —[Mr. McNulty.]
 Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Demoted tenancies

Amendment proposed: No. 234, in 
schedule 1, page 44, line 3, after 'unless', insert— 
 '(a) the grounds for possession are related to antisocial behaviour; 
 (b) the landlord has made attempts to resolve the problem of antisocial behaviour with the tenant and any family by liaising with other agencies if necessary; and'.—[Mr. Paice.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 15 - Demoted assured shorthold tenancies

Tony McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 230, in
clause 15, page 14, line 27, at end insert— 
 '( ) In section 21 of that Act (recovery of possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy) after subsection (5) there is inserted the following subsection— 
 ''(5A) Subsection (5) above does not apply to an assured shorthold tenancy to which section 20B (demoted assured shorthold tenancies) applies.''.'

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 231.

Tony McNulty: The tenants of RSLs will be able to be demoted from assured tenancy agreements to assured shorthold tenancy agreements because of antisocial behaviour. Amendment No. 230 ensures that landlords can obtain a possession order at any time during a demoted assured shorthold tenancy by giving the tenant two months' notice of their intention to end the tenancy.
 Amendment No. 231 clarifies what happens to the demoted assured shorthold tenancy at the end of the demotion period. It is important that a demoted tenant who changes their behaviour should be able to return to the same rights as other tenants. It has always been the intention that a period of demotion should be fixed rather than indefinite, with either eviction or full tenancy rights coming to fruition at the end of the period. The clause as drafted allows for that but the amendment clarifies that a demoted assured shorthold tenancy will become an assured tenancy at the end of the period. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 231, in 
clause 15, page 14, line 27, at end insert— 
 '( ) In Schedule 2A of that Act (assured tenancies which are not shorthold tenancies) after paragraph 5 (former secure tenancies) there is inserted the following paragraph— 
 ''Former demoted tenancies 
 5A. An assured tenancy which ceases to be an assured shorthold tenancy by virtue of section 20B(2) or (4).''.' 
 —[Mr. McNulty.]
 Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Proceedings for possession:

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 197, in
clause 16, page 14, line 29, leave out subsection (1).

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 148, in 
clause 16, page 14, line 42, at end insert— 
 '(d) whether all of the available options for resolving the problem have been exhausted; 
 (e) what actions may be taken to discourage and prevent the person against whom the order is sought from committing further nuisance or annoyance after eviction.'.
 Amendment No. 236, in 
clause 16, page 15, line 13, at end insert— 
 '(3) where a person under 18 will be affected, the court must direct the social services department of the local authority area to undertake an assessment under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989.'.

James Paice: This is a probing amendment, and I do not want the Minister to tell me what the consequences would be of leaving subsection (1) out. The amendment was tabled to challenge him on the purpose of having that subsection in the clause. The subsection refers to section 85 of the Housing Act 1985 and to schedule 2 of that Act, which, giving the grounds for possession, clearly states ground 2 to be:
''The tenant or a person residing in the dwelling-house has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours''.
 All that clause 16(1) seems to do is re-establish that. It says that the court must then consider whether antisocial behaviour has taken place. I fail fully to comprehend why that is necessary. If the tenant or person residing has been found guilty of certain conduct under schedule 2 of the 1985 Act, that establishes beyond peradventure that they have committed antisocial behaviour in terms of nuisance or annoyance. I do not fully understand why we need clause 16(1), which says: 
''The court must consider, in particular—
(a) the effect that the nuisance or annoyance has had on persons other than the person against whom the order is sought'';
 and so on. It seems that that provision is already enshrined in schedule 2 to the 1985 Act. 
 If we look at the contradiction between that and clause 16(2), which refers to ground 14 in the Housing Act 1988, we see the same phraseology in terms of ''guilty of conduct'', which is a nuisance or annoyance, but then we find reference to neighbours. In the 1985 Act the conduct is specified as nuisance or annoyance to neighbours, whereas in the 1998 Act it is nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers. 
 If the purpose of subsections (1) and (2) are to make the two Acts identical—substantively identical phraseology is used in subsections (1) and (2)—we still end up with two different grounds: ground 2 in the 1985 Act referring to neighbours, and ground 14 in the 1988 Act referring to adjoining occupiers. We have spent a great deal of time discussing the legal 
 interpretation of various words, but as a layman there seems to be a significant difference between a neighbour and an adjoining occupier. An adjoining occupier is a much more specific term. 
 I have tabled the amendment to challenge the Government about what we are trying to achieve in the clause. First, a clear statement that the tenant has to be guilty is established in the 1985 and 1988 Acts; I therefore see no need to require the court to decide whether they are guilty. Secondly, if the purpose of the two subsections is to draw the two Acts into having identical language, the provision does not address the significant distinction between a neighbour and an adjoining occupier. 
 As I said, this is an exploratory or probing amendment. I do not pretend to understand the legalese and I look forward to the Minister's attempt to explain it. I hope that I have successfully explained the reasons for amendment No. 197, which is not simply to exclude subsection (1) but to challenge the Government as to why it is necessary to require the court to reconsider what seems already established in the grounds as identified in the other two Acts.

Matthew Green: Although they apply to different subsections—(1) and (2) respectively—amendments Nos. 148 and 236 could have been doubled up and applied to each part. I am sure that will not stop the Minister responding.
 Amendment No. 148 is designed to ensure that all available options for resolving the problem are exhausted. I am sure that in the majority of circumstances an eviction would be sought, which is what is being requested, but what actions may be taken to discourage and prevent the person against whom the order is sought from committing further nuisance or annoyance after eviction? 
 One of the general complaints made about some aspects of the Bill by outside organisations is that the Bill as a whole deals with the removal of a problem but it does not address prevention or cure. I know that the Bill is not intended to deal with that, but the effect of some of the provisions is merely to move the problem on to someone else. I quote the example of the Dundee project, which dealt with families that had been through a succession of evictions—the problem had been moved on unsuccessfully. When the Dundee project was introduced, those families were successfully rehabilitated and none has been evicted since. The point of the amendment, which could apply as much to subsection (2) and to subsection (1), is to probe the Minister's thoughts on exactly how the Government will deal with the difficulty of moving the problem somewhere else rather than addressing the root causes. 
 Amendment No. 236 was proposed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and it, too, could apply to subsections (1) and (2). The Liberal Democrats do not rule out evicting people from their houses as a final sanction, but sometimes particularly young children who are unconnected with the antisocial behaviour become victims of the situation just as much as the neighbours. If there is to be an eviction, we would welcome the court 
 requiring social services to undertake an assessment under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 where there are children under 18. 
 Both amendments would enable us to tackle the problem as a whole, rather than simply move the problem on to someone else.

Vernon Coaker: I rise to comment on the amendments, especially the Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 236 and 148. Before I do so, it is fair to say in relation to amendment No. 148 that of course we must consider various options such as support for families with problems.
 There is a gaping hole in public policy in this area. Many of us know that our communities are blighted by small numbers of families who cause mayhem way beyond their number. I can quote anecdotal examples of areas that have almost been transformed after one or two families have been moved on. We may talk about the rights of individual families and tenants, and it is right to do so because there is always a balance to be struck between individual rights and the general rights of the community, but we must recognise that they are often at the expense of the rights and interests of all the other families in that area. 
 In my area, the process never reaches an end. I have talked to many other hon. Members, and I am sure that that is also the case in their areas. Agency after agency becomes involved with particular families but nothing ever happens, so those families believe that there are never any consequences as a result of their actions. They never believe that they will be evicted, because often the local authority will not take them to court. The local authority will not take them to court because the courts will not give possession to the local authority for the reason that the hon. Member for Ludlow gave—they are concerned about the consequences for the children. 
 What we then get is a problem family causing mayhem in an area. The individual family's needs and those of the children are not met, and the local authority is unwilling and unable to take the family to court. It knows that it will end in failure as the court will not want to put the kids on the street.

Liz Blackman: Is it not the case that adults in the family understand the process and the outcome of that process perfectly well, which encourages them to carry on behaving as they are?

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and adds to my point. Although what the amendment is intended to achieve sounds good and I understand it, I do not think that it will work. There is a gap in public policy. As a society, what do we do with families with children who cause mayhem in an area? The Bill and the amendment do not answer the question.
 The court is told to consider the matter under section 17 of the Children Act. However, I do not think that the court knows what to do even if it does that. There is a huge hole in public policy because we do not have a clue what to do. I passionately believe that if we are to make the provisions work, we must make families believe that they will be evicted, because 
 otherwise they will not think that there is a consequence. That would be right for a particular family and also right for all the other families in that area. 
 The question was raised a couple of years ago, but do we need a residential option? I am not talking about prison, anything compulsory or bars on windows with police guards, before anyone thinks that I am going down that stupid route. However, do we need a residential option for those families, so that they are taken out of the community in which there is a problem? The right of that community to live in peace and security would be respected and the needs of that family and those children in question would be met as well.

Matthew Green: That, as I see it, is exactly what the Dundee project is trying to do, although without enforcement. Some of the families that the project is successfully dealing with have been evicted several times even under existing legislation. I want to ensure that we bring the two together.

Vernon Coaker: If the Dundee project provides a model whereby a residential option is made available, we should perhaps consider it, although I do not know enough about the project to comment.
 We could obviously go on discussing the matter at great length, but it is important to repeat two things. First, the provisions will not work if people do not believe that they will be evicted, because they will not think that there will be any consequence. Secondly, the courts must know that there is a proper sanction that will not put children on the street if they grant possession. If we do not ensure those things, we shall fail and one of the major planks of the Bill to deal with antisocial behaviour in our communities will not work.

Tony McNulty: I am in some difficulty because I am looking for the associated amendment. Amendment No. 197 makes no sense at all, given that it only amends subsection (1), which relates to the Housing Act 1985 and therefore local authority housing tenants, but does nothing to subsection (2), which applies more directly to RSL tenants. The amendment is flawed to begin with.

James Paice: The Minister does himself a disservice in trying to belittle the amendment. I made it clear that I know that the amendment does not make sense on its own and that the sole purpose of tabling it was to challenge the Minister on what the provisions mean. I then sought to illustrate the contradictions.

Tony McNulty: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but one would logically hope that the probing amendment related to both subsections rather than just one. However, if he is yet again entirely dissatisfied with what I say, the hon. Gentleman can pursue the amendment. The amendment is completely out of kilter and will impact only on local authority tenants rather than on RSL tenants.
 There has been sufficient evidence and reviews since the 1985 and 1988 Acts were passed to suggest that the priority needs of victims rather than perpetrators have, 
 to be generous, been a matter of imbalance. All clause 16 would do is restore that balance to some degree for the council housing sector and the RSL sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling rightly says, if all we have is pretty legislation that has no teeth and does not bite, it is simply of no value. 
 I accept what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire says about the 1985 and 1988 Acts. They do not go far enough; they simply talk about the court considering whether it is reasonable to grant a possession order in a range of circumstances. Translated into regular English, clause 16 says that when carrying out such considerations, the court must give some degree of priority to the needs of the victim and the consequences of the antisocial behaviour as well as making an assessment. I am not saying in any partisan sense that the 1985 and 1988 Acts were loaded towards perpetrators. 
 The reason for the provisions is to ensure that the judge does not just listen to the detailed stories of woe from a tenant facing an impending possession order, but takes into account in a far stronger way than the 1985 and 1988 Acts allow the wider balance of the consequences of antisocial behaviour being perpetuated. That is the reason for the provisions. They go much further than those Acts and restore some degree of balance in the language. 
 As in much of our deliberations today, the symbolism and perception of how fair and balanced the system is, how effective it is and whether it has teeth are as important for those who would pursue antisocial behaviour as they are for those who would seek some redress against that behaviour. I ask the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire to resist pressing his amendment to a vote. 
 By the bye, I cannot remember whether it was in relation to the last clause or the previous one that I disappointed the hon. Gentleman so much. I thought that I said at the outset—if I did not, I apologise—that the consequence of the amendments, intended or otherwise, was as I laid out. I was not impugning his motives by suggesting that he was watering down the process—it is just the consequence of the amendments. I am sure that that was not his motive. 
 Amendment No. 148 would add further measures to those that a court would have to give particular weight to in considering whether to grant possession. I agree that such issues are important. A landlord should always look at all possible solutions to a problem and not go automatically straight to possession. However, under our new provisions, the courts will retain discretion to consider the factors relating to the amendment and more. We return to the point about the shopping list. However succinctly put, the import is that the shopping list remains. 
 Our intention is to ensure that the needs of the victims and the wider community do not get lost and our aim is that the court should give the victim's needs priority. I have to say, perhaps in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling—but not intentionally—that I strongly resist the implication of new paragraph (d) in amendment No. 148 that the 
 possession action is only appropriate when all other options have been exhausted. There may be subsequent antisocial behaviour. Sometimes the behaviour may be so serious that seeking outright possession immediately is entirely justified to ensure the swift and effective protection of the community. That may be true only in a handful of cases, but the notion of always having to go through antisocial behaviour or worse until all options have been exhausted is naïve at best, and would be quite destructive in relation to the thrust of the clause at worst. It would close that option in the most serious of circumstances. 
 Amendment No. 236, despite having the imprimatur of the NSPCC, is superfluous. If there is remote impact of any description on the children involved in any household, the relevant powers that the local council is obliged to pursue under section 17 of the Children Act will prevail. It is wrong to suggest that in every circumstance—regardless of background, history and experience—there must be an assessment under section 17. That would not lead to the best use of local authorities' time, and it would introduce a fairly erroneous element into the process. That would, in effect, be to say that if, under any circumstances, children are involved in this process, there are problems or difficulties that necessitate an assessment under section 17. That is not an appropriate burden to impose on local government. Councils already have those duties, and that is being reviewed in the Green Paper on children at risk, and elsewhere.

Matthew Green: The Minister did not address new paragraph (e) in amendment No. 148:
''what actions may be taken to discourage and prevent the person against whom the order is sought from committing further nuisance or annoyance after eviction.''
 There is an idea that eviction leads to the problem being moved somewhere else—some families end up being evicted from one place to another. Will the Minister take a moment to address that?

Tony McNulty: I will, by making a simple statement. I admit that I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that that would be totally out of place under law because it would remove the burden of the consequence of the action and the relationship between landlord and tenant from the clause to somewhere else. That would be inappropriate.
 There are other possible ways that are almost contrary to some of the lines that the hon. Gentleman was arguing in favour of earlier, in terms of antisocial behaviour and injunctions. At that stage in the process, it is not for the local housing authority, the HAT or the RSL to go down that road. That would almost block any subsequent avenue to proceed with a possession order, which cannot be right. That almost belongs at the start of the process that we deliberated on: those preventative, supportive and other measures 
 that should be part of the policy and procedure for antisocial behaviour, RSLs, HATs and local authorities in the first instance. To introduce that at the proceeding stage for a possession order would be inappropriate, and I do not think that it would work under law. 
 For those reasons, and with no malice aforethought in the way that I introduced this in terms of the balance between local authority housing and the RSLs, I urge the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire to withdraw the amendment.

Vernon Coaker: I just wondered whether my hon. Friend the Minister wanted to comment on my residential option?

Tony McNulty: I am struggling to get our existing policy through, without developing subsequent new policy on the hoof so late in the day. However, we will bear that in mind, and explore it once this Bill has secured Royal Assent and I have nothing more to do with it.

James Paice: On that last point, I hope that the Minister will still be responsible for ensuring that the legislation is enforced after it has gained Royal Assent. If I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of the hon. Member for Gedling it is because of this. We do not just sit here and pass laws. We also want them to have the desired effect. That is very important. It has guided me through my consideration of this Bill. I have been asking myself whether it will achieve what we are setting out to achieve.
 I am grateful for the Minister's words of clarification about the remarks on the earlier amendment, and I accept the apology contained therein. 
 The Minister has succeeded in explaining the issue about amendment no. 197 that I sought to raise—although I am unsure whether other hon. Members have understood it. I obviously do not want to see legislation that favours the perpetrator more than the victim, which is clear from everything that I have said during proceedings on the Bill. If that is the intention behind clause 16(1) and (2), I am more than happy with the clarification of the distinction between the two grounds in the existing legislation to which I referred. On that basis, and with gratitude to the Minister for his clarification, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Seven o'clock till Thursday 15 May at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.